CIHM 
Microfiche 
Series 
(Monographs) 


ICIMH 

Collection  de 
microfiches 
(monographies) 


Canadian  Instituta  for  Historical  Microraproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microraproductions  historiquas 


1998 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes  /  Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best  original 
copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this  copy  which 
may  be  bibliographically  unique,  which  may  alter  any  of 
the  images  in  the  reproduction,  or  which  may 
significantly  change  the  usual  method  of  filming  are 
checked  below. 


D 

D 

D 
D 

0 
D 
D 

D 
D 

D 


D 


Coloured  covers  / 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged  / 
Couverture  endommag^e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Couverture  restaur^e  et/ou  pellicul^e 

Cover  title  missing  /  Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps  /  Cartes  g^c^raphiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)  / 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations  / 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material  / 
Reli^  avec  d'autres  documents 

Only  edition  available  / 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion  along 
interior  margin  /  La  reliure  serrSe  peut  causer  de 
I'ombre  ou  de  la  distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge 
int^rieure. 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restorations  may  appear 
within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these  have  been 
omitted  from  filming  /  II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages 
blanches  ajoutSes  lors  d'une  restauration 
apparaissent  dans  le  texte,  mais,  lorsque  cela  §tait 
possible,  ces  pages  n'ont  pas  ^t^  f  ilm^es. 

Additional  comments  / 
Commentaires  suppl^mentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire  qu'il  lui  a 
6\6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details  de  cet  exem- 
plaire qui  sont  peut-6tre  uniques  du  point  de  vue  bibli- 
ographique,  qui  peuvent  nrK>difier  une  image  reproduite. 
ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une  modifk:ation  dans  la  m^tho- 
de  normale  de  filmage  sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 

I      I  Coloured  pages  /  Pages  de  couleur 

I I   Pages  damaged  /  Pages  endommag6es 

□   Pages  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Pages  restaur^es  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Q  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed  / 
Pages  dteolor^es,  tachet^es  ou  piqudes 

Pages  detached  /  Pages  d^tach^es 

Showthrough  /  Transparence 

Quality  of  print  varies  / 
Quality  in^gale  de  I'impression 


D 
D 
D 


D 


Includes  supplen-^ 
Comprend  du  n ,  « 


'  .'aterial/ 
L .  pidmentaire 


Pages  wholly  or  p-i  ;pilv  obscured  by  errata  slips, 
tissues,  etc.,  have  jl  3f!lmed  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  totalement  ou 
partiellement  obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une 
pelure,  etc.,  ont  6\6  film^es  k  nouveau  de  fa^on  h 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 

Opposing  pages  with  varying  colouration  or 
discolourations  are  filmed  twice  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  s'opposant  ayant  des 
colorations  variables  ou  des  decolorations  sont 
film^es  deux  fois  afin  d'obtenir  la  meilleure  image 
possible. 


This  Hem  it  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below  / 

Ce  document  eat  film*  au  Uux  de  reduction  indiqui  ci-deaaoua. 


10x            14x            18x          /  22x           26x            30x 

III           V   1     1          III      1 

12X 


16x 


20x 


24x 


28x 


32x 


Tha  copy  filmtd  h«r«  has  b««n  rtproducad  thanks 
to  tha  ganarosity  of: 

Natfonal   Library  of  Canada 


L'axamplaira  filmd  fut  raproduit  grice  i  la 
gAn^rositA  da: 

BibllothSque  nationala  du  Canada 


Tha  imagas  appaaring  hara  art  tha  bast  quality 
possibia  considaring  tha  condition  and  lagibility 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  kaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacificationa. 


Original  copias  in  printad  papar  covars  ara  filmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illustratad  impraa- 
sion,  or  tha  back  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copiaa  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tha 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  illustratad  impraa- 
sion.  and  anding  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illuatratad  imprassion. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  microficha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  —^  (maaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  V  (maaning  "END"), 
whichavar  applias. 

Mapa.  platss,  charts,  ate.  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarant  reduction  ratios.  Thosa  too  large  to  ba 
antiraiy  included  in  one  exposure  ara  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hend  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  tha 
method: 


Lea  images  suivantes  ont  ixt  raproduites  avec  la 
plus  grand  soin.  compta  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
da  la  nattet*  de  t'exemplaira  film*,  et  en 
conformity  avec  lea  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 

Lea  axemplairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvarture  en 
papier  eat  imprimia  sont  film4s  en  eommen?ant 
par  la  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
darniAre  paga  qui  compona  una  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  salon  la  eas.  Toua  las  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmis  en  commen^ant  par  la 
premiira  page  qui  comporta  una  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  darniAre  paga  qui  comporta  una  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  ipparaitra  sur  la 
derniAre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ^  signifia  "A  SUIVRE '.  le 
symboia  V  signifia  "FIN". 

Las  canes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc..  peuvent  itre 
fiim^s  i  des  taux  d9  reduction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  itre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cliche,  ii  est  film*  i  partir 
de  I'angle  sup*rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  i  droite. 
et  de  haut  en  bas.  en  prenant  la  nombre 
d'imagas  n*cessaire.  Lea  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  m*thode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

MICROCOPY  RISOIUTION  TKT  CHART 

(ANSI  ond  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0 


1.1 


1.25 


1^  1^ 

l£    i2.2 


14.0 


2.0 


1.8 


A  APPLIED  IfVHGE    Inc 

5J  1653  Eosl  Main  Street 

TJi  Rochester.   Ne»  York        14609       USA 

^S  (716)   482- 0300- Phone 

^S  (716)  288  -  S989  -  Fa« 


i  r. 


r 


-> 


',V 


\r 


Waa 

\Jmj\ 

W^ 

■  ^U      National  Library       Bibliotheque  nationale 
1  ^      ol  Canada              du  Canada 

i 


M 


J^a^*^!t?f^ 


M  Warren  St,  Wew  York,  N.T. 


HAS   THE  NORTH  POLE 
BEEN  DISCOVERED? 

An  Analytical  and  Synthetical  Review  of  the  PtMished 

Narratives  of  the  Ttoo  Arctic  Explorera 

DR.  FREDERICK  A.  COOK  and 

Civil  Enoinkbb  ROBERT  E    PEARY.  U.  S.  N. 

Also  a  Review  of  the  Action  of  the  U.  S.  Oovemment 


By  THOMAS  F.  HALI. 


ILLU&TBATBD   WITH  MAPS,  CBABTS, 
DIAOBAMB   AND  TABLES 


BOSTON:  RICHARD  G.  BADGER 

TOBONTO:  THE  COPP  CLABK  CO.,  LIMITED 


Capgrifkl  mr,  h  Mtltard  0. 


H  ^  It 


Made  m  the  United  Staiee  of  Amsriea 
The  Gorkam  Preet.  BoiUm,  V.  8.  A. 


TO 

MRS.  WILLIAM  FREDERICK  HOWES. 

The  Captain's  Wife. 

my  only  known  living  ihipnuite  on  the  beautiful  tailing  ihip 

BELLE  OF  THE  WEST 

way  back  in  'Sixty 
voyaging  on  many  ' 


"  That  dreadftd  year  I  gird  me  to  relate. 
And  now,  bent  o'er  my  desk  I  hesitate. 
Shall  I  go  further  on,  or  shaU  I  stay? 

0  France!    0  grief  1  to  see  a  star  decay. 

1  feel  the  blush  of  rueful  shame  arise; 

Plagues  heaped  on  plagues,  and  v}oes  on  agonies. 
Still  must  I  on  for  truth  and  history; 
The  age  stands  at  the  bar, — the  vntness,  J." 

Hugo. 


FOREWORD 

"Between  the  pleasure  of  knouring  the  truth 
and  the  jdeasure  of  seeking  after  ii.    I 
tDould  choose  the  latter  "SehiJ]^. 

HiBTOBT  is  entiUed  to  the  truth  in  all  vital  matters. 
Therefore,  the  sole  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  unfold  the  trutt 
concerning  the  claims  of  Mr.  Peary  and  Dr.  Cook  regardmg  the 

discovery  of  the  North  Pole.  Although  Congress,  The  National 
Geographic  Society.  Copenhagen  University  and  various 
scientific  bodies  have  taken  action,  the  controversy  is  not 
settied.  Consequently,  the  author  feds  it  his  duty  to  srtfoi^ 
the  truth  as  he  sees  it  after  a  careful  analysis  of  the  pubhshed 
statements  of  the  two  explorers.  .   ^^    ^  i    t 

K  either  Cook  or  Peaiy  have  actually  been  to  the  l-ole,  i 
can  conceive  of  nothing  more  unfair  than  any  attempt  to  rob 
him  of  his  justly  earned  glory.    It  would  be  equally  wrong  to 
attempt  to  disprove  his  case  simply  on  incredulity.    I  have, 
therefore,  endeavored  to  present  tiie  claims  of  each  explore 
fairly  tiiat  the  reader  may  form  an  mtelligent  opuuon.    1 
believe  that  this  analysis  is  unassailable,  and  I  l»oP«  ;*  J!^ 
attract  scientific  minds.    In  tiie  final  estimate,  the  credibihty 
of  the  explorer's  story  will  be  tiie  true  and  only  test  as  to  tiie 
actual  discoverer.    It  is  impossible  for  an  explorer  who  ha^ 
traveled  comparatively  alone  upon  tiie  Polar  Sea  to  furnish 
actual  proof  of  his  claims,  unless  he  discovers  land  or  gets  perfect 
soundings.    It  is  equally  impossible  to  disprove  his  cUums  ex- 
cept by  his  narrative.    Inasmuch  as  neither  Peary  nor  CocJhM 
anythmg  to  submit  as  jmwf  of  being  discoverer  of  tiie  North 
Pole  except  a  candid  narrative,  any  attempt  to  unfold  tiie  truth 
must  be,  as  tiiis  review  is,  an  original  analysb  of  the  exptorer  s 

6 


Foreword 


reports.  The  opinion  of  others,  even  that  of  noted  explorers, 
must  be  ignored.  No  polar  explorer  can  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected to  deny  the  story  of  another  polar  explorer.  He  is 
himself  similarly  situated.  It  is  best  for  him  to  accept  it  in 
silence  or  to  endorse  it,  even  though  the  nature  of  the  achieve- 
ment robs  him  of  his  own  honors. 

I  have  endeavored,  however,  not  to  overlook  any  publica- 
tion of  merit  on  either  side.  Some  articles  appealing  only  to 
prejudice  and  passion,  I  have  passed  unnoticed  on  the  theory 
that  whoever  would  be  influenced  by  such  appeals  would  care 
little  for  argument  or  reason.  Vituperation,  contumely,  and 
scurrility  should  have  no  weight  in  making  histoiy.  They  are 
not  considered  factors  in  this  discussion,  bst  any  valid  testimony 
for  either  claimant  is  given  a  fair  hearing. 

From  the  first  I  saw  nothing  suspicious  in  Cook's  story. 
I  have  since  studied  it  carefully,  have  read  the  various  criticisms 
and  attempts  to  discredit  it,  have  noted  the  decision  of  the 
Copenhagen  University  that  he  has  not  proved  his  case,  and 
yet  I  am  chained  to  my  first  impression  that  his  si  )ry  in  the 
main  is  believable.  Cook  claims  to  have  discovered  land  at 
85  d^rees  north.  This  is  the  only  positive  statement  of  a 
physical  fact  in  the  two  narratives.  If  the  observations  of 
future  explorers  confirm  his  statement,  the  world  will  to  a 
great  extent  be  convinced  of  his  integrity.  I  have  assumed 
that  if  Cook's  narrative  cannot  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with 
itself  or  with  established  facts,  that  his  right  to  honor  rests  on 
exactly  the  same  foundation  as  does  that  of  any  explorer  who 
has  preceded  him,  in  the  Arctic  or  the  Antarctic  Seas.  They 
have  no  sounder  claim  except  as  the  truth  gives  it  to  them. 
This  will  be  history's  verdict,  and  should  be  the  judgment  of 
the  present. 

Peary  is  entitled  to  the  same  consideration,  and  his  natr»- 
tive  will  be  reviewed  on  exactly  the  same  basis  as  that  of  Cook. 
Peary's  8t<My,  however,  impressed  me  immediately  as  insincere, 
and  this  opinion  increased  upon  closer  examination.  The 
events  which  followul  Peary's  assertion  of  discovery  tendi  when 


Foreword  ' 

analyzed,  to  discredit  his  claim.  My  opinion  is  justified  be- 
cause  it  is  based  upon  what  Peaiy  and  his  fnends  have  said  and 
done.  aU  of  which  is  a  matter  of  record  and  therefore  undeni- 
able The  tables  and  diagrams  herein  reUting  to  Peary  s  tnp 
are  not.  strictiy  speaking,  mine.  They  are  Peary's,  and  are 
taken  with  fideUty  from  his  own  description  exactiy  as  he 
should  have  drawn  them  himself  in  his  book.  Sbackleton 
includes  such  date,  as  do  other  explorers  of  hke  character. 
Peary's  omission  is,  in  itself,  significant.  At  aU  events,  aa  I 
pubUsh  them,  they  are  a  part  of  Peary's  narrative  presented 

in  ffraphic  form.  .  ,    . 

There  is  no  pretense  that  this  book  is  exhaustive,  or  that 
it  U  literature.    It  is  offered  in  a  sincere  effort  to  present  the 
truth  and  with  the  earnest  hope  that  the  reader  wiU  overkwk 
the  imperfections.    I  assure  him  that  if  he  is  a  patnot  and  loves 
the  truth  that  I  have  a  message  which  it  may  repay  him  to 
peruse.    The  titie  of  the  book  is  a  concession  to  popular  ex- 
pression, for  the  North  Pole  is  in  reaUty  an  unagmary  pivot 
undiscoverable  as  the  Equator.    The  achievement  of  mi  arrtic 
explorer  consists  solely  in  the  northing  accomphshed.  JKie 
query    herem   discussed   then   is.   accurately   steted.-  Has 
anyone  VISITED  the  point  that  is  ninety  degrees  north  of  the 
Equator?" 


M 


(Ml 

I'!- 


i!!' 


i 


t«^ 


CONTENTS 

Px^_P.T  ONE.    PEARY 


Foreword  . 
Inirodwtvm 


CHAPTER  I.      PEABY's  CLAIMB 


The  Controverty    . 

Peary' »  Narraiive  First  Coruidered 

Peculiarities 

C'lmm  of  I'iraculous  Speed 

Miles         .... 

Detours      .... 

Drift         .... 

Leeward  Drift 

Peary's  Drift 

Diagrams  Explained 

Peary's  Story  in  a  NutituU 


Page 
5 
1» 


26 
M 
SO 
81 
Si 
88 
88 
87 
87 


CHAPV-      n.     DETA'L  ANAIiTSB  OF  CJ^SKD 

Tables  I  and  II  explained  .  .  .  ■ 

leary's  Story  to  ST  i7'  is  TrwittDorthy  .  ■ 

Alleged  Trip  from  Bartlett  Camp  to  the  Pole  and  Return 
Aeederating  Speed  .  .  .  ■  ■ 

Camp  No.  S6  and  Return 
Comments  on  the  Journey  of  April  5th  and  6th 

At  the  Pole 

Return  from  the  Pole       .  .  .  .  ■ 

Comment  '  «     • ' 

South  from  Bartlett  Camp — Competitive  Territory 
Alleged  Facts  as  to  Return  Rate  of  Hpeed 
Compiifison  with  Bartlett  .  .  .  • 

Condusions  as  to  Speed  .  .  ■  ■ 

CHAPTEB  III.      FINAL  PBOOIB  ON  BPEEO 


Benson  on  Speed  . 

Speed  cf  Previous  Explorers 

Average  Walking  SpMd  . 

Weston's  Rate 

Peary's  Allegations  Compared 

Peary  versus  Peary 

Bro&n  Trails 


88 
45 
48 
47 
48 
80 
80 
88 
08 
84 
87 
88 
8S 


«4 

74 
70 
79 
80 
84 
86 


10 


Contents 


■m 


Cook  Compwed    ..... 
Peary't  Reeord  South      .... 

BarUeit'sLoif 

Evidence  from  Reeord  of  Other  Supporting  Parties 

Claim*  qf  Speed  Dtfended 

Oronenor'e  Letter  Analyzed 

Final  Comment  on  Speed 

AU  Fool'*  Day,  1909       .... 


CHAPTER  IT.      PEABT  DISCREDITS  BIS  OWN  STORT 


Ditorderly — Uneyitemat'i! 

A  Wonderful  Prediction  . 

ColkJeral  Cireumttance*  . 

Grand  and  Major  Prophecy 

Another  Program — E*ieniial  to  Sucee** 

No  Rea*on  aver  Given    . 

Borup  Tell*  of  an  Eaaterly  Current 

Log  Uriving 

Comment  .... 

Dr.  JehyU  and  Mr.  Hyde 

Straw*       .... 

Benton'*  Book  verru*  Peary 

A  Review  .... 

CHAPTER  V.    Shadows 

Picture*  in  Peary'*  Book  Su*piciou* 

Approximate  Time  of  Taking 

Either  Picture*  or  Title*  Fake 

Shadow*  at  PoUt    . 

No  *hadow*  in  Picture*   . 

Dxtbtful  Point*    . 

Cotuiu*iort* 


01 
M 
98 
97 
105 
107 

lis 
lis 


lis 

180 
120 
12S 
127 
120 
180 
182 
188 
ISO 
188 
148 
145 


148 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
158 


chapter  VI.  ALLBOKD  OBSERVATIONS  NEAR  THE  POLE 


Nature      .... 

Time—€ompa** — Sun 

An  ObeervoHon     .  .  .  . 

Peary'*  Alleged  Obeervation*  at  theJPole 

An  Unanchored  Camp 

70th  Meridian  Incongruitie* 

170th  Meridian  Incongruitie* 

Contradiction* 

Retraction* 

Benton  on  the  Sun 

Tittmann  and  MitduU    . 

MiieheW*  Testimony 

MitchdC*  Deception 

Three  Locations  qf  Camp  Jessup 

Time  Garbled 

Mitchdl  on  the  Sun 

The  Plotting  Wrong 


155 
156 
157 
158 
161 
162 
169 
172 
174 
177 
186 
187 
189 
190 
192 
194 
196 


CorUenU 


11 


iAUle 


Ingenioui  . 

Awumptiotu 

Entbarriuiment 

Chronometeri 

Rtioajnttdatwn 

CHAFTSB  Vn.     HOW  PBABT  OBTAINTO  HM  HONOM 

S<H.  Jied  Invettigation  bu  Natimcl  Oeograjikie  Soeuly 

The  Firil  C<mgre$»ional  Heartnn 

Tittman'i  TetHnumy 

Mr.  OanneH  Tutifiet 

Peary  and  Oannett 

Biai  ojf  Gannett 

End  of  Firet  Hearing 

Peeulutrities  of  Second  Hearing 

Peary'e  Teetimony 

Heritaturt . 

"Canp^  Recall" 

ReeoUeetiun  Bad   . 

Ewuion 

Memory  Brighten*  up  a 

Oveee  Some  Facte  .  ■ 

Kept  Poeeeeeion  of  Hie  Alleged  Data 

The  Diecovery  a  Secret 

A  D^erent  Vertion 

The  Monununt 

Inexplicable 

The  Diary 

Reeult  of  the  Invettigcium. 

Hobton'e  Theory  of  Namgatum 

Tratding  by  Compaee^    . 

Can  Oheertation*  Be.  .  aked 

Commentt  .  „      ' 

The  Tvo  Important  Featu. 

Peary  Honored 

The  Ihdy  of  Ev^.y  Cttaen 

cuAPrm  vra.    did  peabt  kbach  87"  6'  in  1908? 

Polar  Sea 
Start  cf  Expedition  .  ■ 

Charaeterieiie*  of  Tnp  North      .  ■ 

iMtsZiqf  Suhorting  ParHee.  Except  Ryan 
ObientUione  Taken 
Peary  Loit 

Ryan  Starte  Back  ■.     .,  .U         ' 

Cmdiium  of  EgutpmwU  AprU  lo  ■  ■  ■         jin^j  Bardett 

PotUim  qf  Peary  After  Siorm  Sxmilof  to  thai  of  1909  a.  AUegea  «««w 

DeJri^i^ihe'Ejrecl^iu>o8torm,Encaunteredon'jo,m,eytiorth 


Tee  of 


the  Invettigation 


too 
toi 

•OS 

toe 


110 

tis 

tto 
tti 
ttt 
tts 

ttA 

its 


ttt 
tao 
tsi 
tat 
tts 

t84 
tS9 
tS5 
t88 

ta7 

tS7 

tao 

t40 
t4C 

ttt 
tM 

tu 

tM 

tST 


US 

tM 

too 

t«l 

tot 
tot 
tot 

MS 

toe 

t67 

toe 


12 


Contents 


DtterifHoH  qfJourruif  PUdud  to  new  Tune 

FielUvme  Mardut  .... 

FieHiioui  LaHtuds,  Longitude  and  Dutanee  Exfoeed  . 

Comment  on  Pearffi  Sentiment*  Brfore  Tracing  Return 

Peary  Starti  South 

Peary' e  Linee  at  Plotting  Fietitioue 

Peanie  Probable  Journey 

Beeiete  qf  Clark' e  and  Peary' i  Journey 

Arrieal  at  Sheridan 

Three  Sea  Marki .... 

Dieeoeery  by  Intention  . 


C71 

vn 

t74 
t80 
882 
884 
885 
891 
808 
894 
899 


'I 


CBAPTXB  IX.     HOW  PEABT  DUCBBDITIID  COOK 


Piret  Mote  Againet  Cook  Made  at  Etah 

CocikandFraneke. 

Peary  Arrieee 

Dual  Inttruetioru 

Cook  in  Deetitution 

Cook'e  Return 

Cook  Telle  the  Neae;  Pledgee  of  Secrecy 

Cook  Ooee  Home  . 

FidelUy  qf  Whitney  and  Pritchard 

The  Situation  at  Etah 

Peary  Heare  Newe  at  Zerke 

Coniroterey  Opened  by  Peary' e  Wireleee 

Arctic  Club  in  a  Tight  Place 

So<aUed  Proof e    . 

Peculiar  In^meition 

Fatal  Omieeion 

Deception  and  Perfidy 

Peary  Tdlt  Cook's  Story 

Commente  .... 

Fourth  Statement  ... 

This  Version  Bear*  Ear  Marks  of  Peary's  Ovm  Narrative 

CredUriKty  of  Peary's  Version  vs.  Cook's  Version 


an 

809 

sio 

811 
818 
814 
814 
815 
Sl« 
817 
818 
818 
818 
819 
888 
828 
389 
882 
885 
887 
841 
848 


CHAPTTB  X.     RECAPITULATION 


!    1 


Recapitulation  of  Peary's  Story '. 
Peculiar  Mistakes  of  Fiction  Writers 
Peary  as  a  Writer  of  Fiction 
Facts  as  Shown  Af^lied  to  Polar  Story 
Question  as  to  Narratice  of  1906 
Connection  Between  1906  and  1909 
Theories     ..... 
Truth  Will  Ultimately  be  Known 
Has  an  Honor  Been  Undeservedly  6i*en? 
Reineestigalion  Called  for 


854 

855 
858 

859 
860 
860 
861 
867 
860 
871 


Cont0ni$ 
PABT  TWO.    COOK 
CBAprsB  I.    ooos'a  tnomt  BZAimnB 


Cook't  Claim  Not  Ajfteltd  6y  Pearp 

CooeiClaiMfor8r»id    . 

Tluory  cf  Catditioiu 

Cook'i  Seitntifie  Htfermuu 

Coniradietioiu 

Pieturtt 

Shadowt    . 

Um  qf^  Tmt  PoU 

Criiieitmt  . 

Cot^tSUdM 

Comvau  Variation 

No  Serioiu  Diierojianeut  Found 

Copmhagm 

Conduiion 


18 


are 

917 

tm 

880 
8U 
865 
886 

867 
886 

,  886 
,  860 
,  801 
.     868 


CHAPTDI  II.     HT.  MOSniliBT 


Mt.  MeKinley 


CHAPTKB  m.  OOOK'b  POOD  AIXOWAMCB 


TheOtdlook 

Knaun't  Mvuk-Ox  Fraud 

Kmnen'$  StanoHon  Fake 

Cook't  StatemtnU  on  Food 

Matt^ut  cf  Cargo 

Cook't  Dogi  Beit  tn  AnOw 

Dog  Meat  . 

wide  Margin  cf  AUommee 

Food  Alkwmot  Proud  Suffimmi 


CHAFIBB  IT.      PBOF< 

Stoekuell  a  Seimtiet  qf  Note 
The  Midnight  Sun 
Diisrevaneg  of  S16  Milet 
Did  Not  Hone  a  Horimm 
SioekwM  Dtterihee  a  Sextant 
Co<A  mu  681  Milee  Short  cfitte  Pale 
D^ereneei  at  Variout  Latiludee 
Cook'e  Narraiiee  Dieieeted 
Pkyiieal  ConttanU  Required 
LtOUude  cf  Annoatok  . 

Stockwefft  GaMed  Tabie  Examined 


■TOCKWXIX'b  CBmCIBliB 


864 


887 
806 
866 
400 
403 
404 
¥K 
406 
410 


411 
416 
416 
414 
4U 
417 
417 
418 
461 
468 
468 


CSAFTSB  ▼. 


Thi  MetropoKian—Karl  Decker' i  Tirade 


484 


14 


m 


Content* 


cnAPTBR  VI.     COWOnWMIM  HILOBUM  >  WiaCB 


Otu  Man  Critic  of  Dr.  Cook't  Clainu  . 
PainiUMng  Reiemrek      .... 
CntifiM  to  Hit  Own  Hontsty  and  Integrity 
Biirorition  No.  1         .... 
Aeetuu  Cook  of  Ingraliiudt 
Htlguen'$  Pontim  So. » 
lAuihor'i  Poritim  Exjdained)    . 
Udguen  Avmgei  Himtdiffor  Ingratitude  qf  Cook 

Tkeorytkat"FaUeinoneufaheinaU" .  .  . 

So  Etidenee  Fumi^ud  That  Proeee  Cook  D*<'  Sot  Readi  the  Pole 

ClmmeUeu  Making  an  ImpermudAnalyrii  . 

Comfaru  Cook'*  Deteripiion  of  EeenU  at  Ohmeetter,  Matt 

qf John  R.  Bradley  ..„       ; 

The  Eeente  at  Annoatok  With  Thoee  of  RudotJ  Franeke 
Conjiued  ai  to  Date  qfthe  Riling  Sun  tn  FAruary,  1908 
Oreal  Ado  over  Cook'e  Choice  of  Companionefor  Daeh  to  Pole 
Critieieee  Cook  for  Sot  PiMiehing  Compaee  Varialum 
Attempte  to  Dieer^it  Dieeoeery  of  Bradley  Land 
Hdgeeen'e  Courage  Seemini^y  Faxle  Him  at  the  Pole 
Critieitm  qf  Return  Journey 

On  Speed 

Too  Much  Cun  be  Proeen  at  Timee 

Injuree  Cook'e  and  Helgeeen'e  Reputation* 

Tvo  Indicatione  that  Cook  May  Have  Reached  the  Pole 

Men  qfOreai  Aehietemmt  Muit  Expect  Unjuet  Treatment 

CHAPTEB  Vn.     OONCLUUON8 

Cook'e  Sarrative  Vnimpeaehed 

Unfair  Judgment  . 

Eneyelopedta  Brittanica 

Bxplanation 

Saneen  and  Cook 

Amundeen  and  Cook 

C   ye  Sarrative  . 

ox^rfoeiiione 

Endenee  a*  to  Cook 

EAitnoe 

Bradley  Land 

Open  Sea  at  the  Pole 

Amundeen'e  Report  May  Determine  the  Conditicne  at  the  Pole 
Condueion  ..... 

APPENDIX 


With 


ThoM 


U 

m 


IV. 


I.    Analyiie  of  Peary's  Polar  Staiemente  by  W.  J.  Armbrueter 

ft        WW   nJ    T    '■-  .»  ••  n_-A>>    i.L_  f-..^  ''rv!J  D^..,  tt^^  4l 


4S» 
4^0 
440 
441 
441 
44t 
♦  ? 
444 
445 
445 
447 

447 
448 
448 
440 
451 
454 
455 
457 
458 
459 
46« 
4«8 
464 


405 
405 
400 

407 
407 
408 
471 
47a 
478 
478 
478 
474 
475 
475 


479 
490 


H.  V^.  Lewin  on  "Drift"  taken  from  '^Did  Peary  Reatk  the  Pole" 
Extraetefrom  Speech  of  Hon.  R.  B.  Macon  Delivered  in  the  Haute 
ef  ReprMentativei  and  Reported  in  Congreeeional  Record  of  Febru- 

aryl6,19Il 494 

Analytie  qf  Mr.  MitcheWs  Statemmte  btfore  the  Congreeeional  Com- 
mittee tctM  Summary  of  Analytie  by  W.  J.  Armbrueter,  February 
19.1911 517 


Mil 


DIAGRAMMATIC  CHARTS  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 


^i""aSp  <4  North  Polar  Regimu  Showing  th$  RupeeHve  Rouiu  oj  Peary 

t    Drift  of  From  and  Jeanette,  etc.,  Mavqf  ■  •      End  of  Book 

I  D^am  Showing  R.  E.  Peary',  tiarchto  th»  North  W«. '•''««""i' 

ifc  70"  Meridian  from  Cape  Columbia  to  PoU  and  Bttummg  on 

4  Sh^ldL  the  Dietaneee  Pearv  would  hoM  liuidehad  ht  trwidtd  W  day; 

with  hi*  Polar  Party.  wiUumt  other  nvporHng  partvu;  oeerUumiu 
ieeatthe  tame  need  in  the  tame  manner  aeheeayihe  aetuaUy  did  Ho 

5  Showing  the  IHreetion  of  the  Sun  Viewed  Jfsm  Camp  Jeeeup  No.  1  and 

9  PhJ^fro^'to^of  Prteeure  Ridae  Back  cf  Idooe  iu  Camp  Jeeeup  taken 

from  page  eOSqf  Peary'*  Book  "North  Pole       ■  ■_  .^J 

7  PhoUt  cf^The  Four  Direction*  from  the  PoU"  taken  from  page  e99  cf 

Peary'*  Book  "North  PoU"  .       .^  •   ~«      ^ 

8  View  Chart  iUuttraHng  the  length  of  Shadow*  when  tiutunieV  and 
^S(f  aboee  the  horiaon  .  •  i,  «J.,„i„-„' 

9  Diagram  ehowing  po*Uion  qf  the  Sun  at  Noon  and  Midnight.  Columlna 

Meridian  Time.  April  8  and  7  •  • 

10  CompoeiU^ Diagram*  No.  9  and  No.  11  eupertmpo*ed    .  .  • 

II  MuSdF*  Diagram  and  Plot  of  Peary'*  Marches  xn  Vicimty  of  North 

PoU 

1«    MiUMT*  Diagram  of  Route  Extended  to  the  Coaet  ■  •  • 

IS    IUuttraHng  the  Changing  Compa**  Vanahon  tn  Traedtng  from  tape 

Columbiatothe  North  PoU  .    ;  ,  ^■.  •     f  .•,  j  ' 

14    FatherRigge'*DiagramiUu*traHtunuthodofol4axmngUhtude  . 

14-1    Pieturi'^Mendmg  Near  the  PoU"  taL    from  page  269  of  Dr.  Cook  * 

Book  "My  Attainment  of  the  PoU" 
1«    Camp*  and  DiiiaHee*  on  Cook'*  Route  ,,,,.•,   ^4L.p«u 

1«    Arn^uter'*  Diagram  Indieaiing  Pomtwn*  xn  the  Vicintty  of  the  toU 

a*  Plotted  from  Peary'*  Staiemet^       „  ,     o     •    ,oo-i 
17    Peary'*  TrMeU  (and  Alleged  Traede)  on  Polar  Sea  xn  1905 


ite 


2« 


S8 

M 

148 

ISO 

146 

U* 

40 
186 

188 
198 

844 

850 

386 
S84 

480 
860 


TABLES 


Pah  I 

Number 

I.     TabU  in  Oroupi  <^  AUtftd  Mardut— Taken  from  Diagram  No.  1 
II.    Shawint  What  wu  Don*  AJi$r  BartltH  Tumtd  Back,  AUo  Skotf- 

in§  a  Compariaon  of  Sp-d  B^fdrt  and  Afitr  Ht  Tumtd  Back 
III.    MartkM  SorUtcif  BarlkH  Camp  „ 

IV.  BorllHf*  Mankfjrom  Camp  Bartktt  to  Cape  Columbur-Peary 

from  Camp  Jeeeup  to  Cape  Columbia 

V.  A  TurieeTo/d  Tale— HeneonVereui  Peary  on  Speed  .  .       • 
VI.    Hielorieal  Faeti  of  Traeel  on  Polar  lee                            „     .      . 

VII.    Speed.    Comparing  Mardue.    Return  from  Fartkeei  North  of 

Each  Party „.     . 

Vin.    Martkee  nf  Returning  Parlieefrom  Cape  ColuwAu  to  f  've  Skerv- 
dan      ....••■ 
IX.    Obeereatione  at  tke  Pole.    ExtraeUfrom  Peary'e  Vofiout  i  Mieor 
tione  Regarding  kie  Polar  Obeereatione 
X.    Heneon  Vertue  Peary  on  ObeerwHont                       •  _         • 
XI.    TabU  Skouing  tke  Fabrieatim  in  tke  Houm  and  Ttms  Veed  by 
MitekeU 

Fart  II. 

XII.    Cook'e  Food  Allowance.    BiU  cf  Fan 


Fkf. 
40 

44 
M 

08 
07 
78 

98 

100 

108 
177 

194 


407 


HAS  THE  NORTH  POLE  BEEN  DISCOVEREDF 


1  H' 


INTRODUCTION 


The  publishers  think  that  readers  of  this  book  would  be 
interested  to  know  something  of  the  author.  That  they  might 
in  that  event  have  a  more  comprehensive  view,  a  better  pros- 
pective of  the  situation.  Deferring  to  these  opinions,  I  will 
give  a  brief  account  of  myself. 

I  was  bom  in  East  Dennis,  Mass.,  in  1841.  My  father,  my 
paternal  and  maternal  grandfathers  were  seafaring  men.  They 
were  masters,  owners  and  managers  of  sailing  ships.  I  naturally 
took  to  the  sea. 

At  the  age  of  16,  I  started  out  before  the  mast  in  the 
sailmg  ship  "Wild  Hunter"  on  a  voy^je  around  the  world. 
At  17, 1  made  my  second  voyage  around  the  world  on  the  ship 
Belle  of  the  West  as  third  mate.  At  the  age  of  19,  I  made  my 
third  voyage  on  the  same  ship  with  the  same  captain  bu^  as 
first  mate.  I  never  was  a  second  mate.  On  my  fourth  voyage, 
I  was  captain  of  the  bark  Egypt. 

I  quit  the  sea  in  1866.  I  was  not  long  at  it;  eight  years; 
but  I  always  made  long  voyages,  and  on  those  voyages  I 
traversed  the  ocean  spaces  quite  extensively.  Every  year,  I 
was  m  some  part  of  the  Orient;  and  almost  as  often  in  Europe, 
South  America  and  Australia.  During  this  time,  I  crossed  the 
equator  in  every  sea  through  which  it  passes,  and  crossed  it 
20  times.  I  look  back  upon  those  few  years  at  sea  with  ex- 
ceedingly great  interest  and  great  pleasure. 

On  retiring  from  the  sea,  I  married  Amelia  J.  Crowell  of 
West  Yarmouth,  Mass.,  and  in  March  1866  moved  to  Omaha, 
Nebr.,  where  I  have  since  resided.  I  have  been  constantly 
engaged  in  business  affairs  in  this  city  and  in  the  mountains 
west.  I  aetved  the  public  aae  term  in  the  legislature  Mid  sax 
years  postmaster. 

19 


so 


Introduction 


I  have  always  been  interested  in  tales  of  discovery.  When 
Peaiy  was  planning  his  last  voyage  and  was  delayed  for  want 
of  funds,  I  was  sorry  for  him.  I  wished  then  that  I  could  have 
spared  what  was  necessary  and  ^ven  it  to  him.  I  wondered  how 
so  many  multi-millionaires  could  see  him  hampered  as  he  was 
for  want  of  suflScient  money  to  equip  hhnself  for  such  an 
important  undertaking.  Had  I  been  one  of  those  multi-nul- 
lionaires  it  seemed  to  me  then  that  I  would  have  supplied  him 
with  what  he  needed. 

i  must  have  read  of  Dr.  Cook  in  Peary's  books,  but  I  had 
forgotten  that  such  a  person  ever  lived,  when  I  read  Cook's 
di?patch  from  Lerwick  Islands  that  he  had  been  to  the  North 
Pole.  I  was  tremendously  enthused  over  it  and  devoure*!^  every 
word  of  his  first  publication  with  a  gluttonous  appetite.  I 
doubted  his  stoiy,  but  hoped  it  was  true.  I  did  not  and  could 
not,  at  first,  believe  that  it  could  possibly  be  truth.  But  I  was 
determined  from  the  beginning  to  study  all  the  reports  and  fully 
satisfy  myself.  Mr.  Stead's  report  from  Copenhagen  perhaps 
influenced  me  more  than  any  other  in  Cook's  favor.    Still  I  was 

skeptical. 

When  Peary's  dispatch  came  a  week  later  statmg  that  he 
also  had  been  to  the  Pole,  it  may  well  be  unagined  that  my 
interest  then  became  intense.  I  ahnost  abandoned  all  else  for 
awhile  in  order  to  study  every  possible  feature  of  the  narratives 
of  both  explorers.  I  had  no  partiality  for  either  as  far  as  I 
know.  My  whole  interest  was  to  know  for  myself;  t»  satisfy 
my  own  mind  as  to  what  was  the  truth,  and  to  know  it  wholly 
and  solely  for  my  own  gratification. 

I  had  no  thought  of  evar  writing  a  word  on  the  subject. 
I  soon  learned,  however,  that  what  I  had  discovered  in  my  early 
researches  was  important  for  the  public  to  know.  I  published 
a  few  short  articles  on  special  features  in  the  local  ne\7spapers 
whic'.i  attracted  some  attention,  and  as  the  Peary-Cook  con- 
troversy r&pidly  unfolded,  I  soon  realized  that  my  self-imposed 
task  had  only  begun.  The  research  was  so  extremely  fasci 
nating  and  appeared  to  me  to  be  so  important  for  history,  that 


Iniroduction 


21 


I  could  not  rest  untU  I  felt  in  my  soul,  that  I  had  completely 
mastered  the  subject  in  every  possible  detaU. 

I  now  feel  that  my  findings  and  conclusions  are  beyond 
possible  refutation.  I  have  waited  several  years  hoping  Uiat 
more  learned  persons  would  make  the  research  and  pubhsh  m 
substance  what  I  have  unearthed.  But  as  I  am  advancmg 
in  years  and  fearing  that  some  of  my  data  may  be  lost,  I  have 
concluded  to  give  posterity  and  history  the  result  of  my 
labors.    I  am  not  an  educated  man  and  writing  is  not  my 

calling.  .  ,,•»•*» 

I  am  m  hopes  that  what  I  have  written  may  lead  scientists 
to  take  up  the  subject  where  I  leave  it,  and  that  through  them 
the  entire  world  wiU  be  convinced  beyond  cavil  and  beyond 
dispute,  as  to  what  is  the  truth  in  the  alleged  discovery  of  the 
North  Pole. 


f 


I  i 


"I  ^1 


i     :^ 


l!Wi 


HAS  THE  NORTH   POLE 
BEEN  DISCOVERED 

CHAFTER  I 

PEARY'S  CLAIMS 

A  Synopsis  of  the  Cook-Peaiy  conlrover^  is  a  necessary 

basis  for  a  discussion  of  their  claims.    (In  Sept.  1,  1000  the 

world  was  eleetrified  by  the  news  that  the  Danish  Steamer 

"Hans  Egede"  touching  at  Lerwick,  Shetland  Islands  had  on 

board  Dr.  Frederick  A.  C!ook  <rf  Brooklyn,  New  York,  who 

claimed  to  have  been  to  the  North  Pole  on  April  jSl,  1008. 

The  "Hans  E^ede"  proceeded  to  Copenhagen  where  Cook  was 

honored  with  unparalleled  enthusiasm  by  the  world.    In  the 

midst  of  the  festivities,  news  was  reodved  that  Robert  E. 

Peary  on  the  Steamer  "Roosevelt"  had  arrived  at  Indian 

Harbor,  Labrador,  and  that  he  h'vl  reached  the  Pole  on  April 

6, 1000.    Peary's  wireless  dispatcii  came  a  few  days  later  saymg: 

"  Cook's  story  should  not  be  taken  too  seriously.    The  Eskimos 

who  accompanied  him  say  he  did  not  go  far  from  land. "    This 

was  the  b^inning  of  a  controverqr  which  raged  for  many 

months.    At  first  public  qrmpathy  was  with  Cook  who  lectured 

and  published  in  installments  a  complete  story  of  his  travels. 

Peary's  method  of  attack,  the  i^parent  jealous  which  insjured 

it,  and  the  vagueness  of  his  charges,  lost  him  friends  for  a  time. 

The  supporters  of  Peary  however,  renewed  the  onslaught  on 

Cook  and  finally  brought  about  his  complete  discomfiture. 

As  a  result.  Cook  disheartened  and  unable  to  stand  the  nervous 

and  mental  strain,  expatriated  himself  and  was  lost  to  view. 

Peaiy  then  published  an  abridged  stoiy  of  his  joum^  and  took 

the  l«:ture  platform,  but  soon  he  too  retired. 

Criticisms  then  b^an  to  appear  as  to  \he  genuineness  of 
Peaiy's  claims.  His  friends  hurriedly  appealed  to  Congress  for 
medals  and  hcmors,  asking  th&.  he  be  appdnted  a  Rear-Admiral, 

95 


i 
4 

!ii  I 
1|  I 


I 


ill 


:i: 


m 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


pensioned,  and  retired.  Congress,  however,  was  disinclined  at 
that  time*  to  grant  him  honors,  until  his  actual  proofs  were 
exhibited  to  justify  such  action.  Peaiy  persisted  and  thereby 
endangered  the  security  of  his  fame.  It  was  thought  significant 
that  he  should  ask  honors  for  his  achievements  and  yet  refuse  to 
supply  any  proofs.  Nevertheless,  in  January  1911,  further 
pressure  was  brought  to  bear,  and  Congress  on  little  more  than 
the  origmal  evidence,  finally  granted  the  honors  which  had 
been  a«ked  for  by  Peary  and  his  friends.  Peaiy  has  smce  been 
exceedingly  quiet.  Cook  returned  from  his  seif-imposed  exile 
and  has  in  lectures  been  trying  to  establish  his  claims. 

Peary's  narrative  was  published  m  three  forms.    The  first, 
an  abridged  account  of  his  trip,  appeared  in  a  New  York  paper 
immediately  on  his  arrival  in  civilization.    This  article  was 
subsequently  printed  in  many  periodicals,  notably  The  Ovtlook.^ 
(This  magazine  espoused  Peary's  cause  and  therefore  frequent 
quotations  from  it  are  used  in  this  analysis).    Peary's  second 
narrative  was  a  full  story  of  the  expedition,  which  appeared  in 
installments  m  Hamptoti's    Magazine.X    The  third  was  his 
book  The  North  Pole.**    It  one  expects  to  obtain  accurate 
information  from  Peary's  accounts,  he  is  doomed  to  disappoint- 
ment.   There  are  alterations  and  discrepancies  in  the  various 
publications  which  often  necessitate  quoting  from  them  sepa- 
rately for  complete  statements.    Before  proceeding  with  the 
analysis  and  ai^^ument,  I  shall  enumerate  the  various  character- 
istics of  Peary's  story  (indicative  of  his  mind)  which  attracted 
my  attention,  and  which  occurring  so  conspicuously  with  the 
same  apparent  design,  tended  to  arouse  my  suspicions  as  to  the 
veracity  of  his  claims. 

First  as  regards  style:  Peary's  superficial  manner;  his 
apparent  haste  and  hazmess  in  relating  his  experiences  on  the 
trip  from  the  Bartlett  Camp  to  the  Pole;  the  immediate  change 

^March  1910. 
tSept.  18,  1909. 
lAug.  and  Sept.  1910. 
''Published  late  in  1910. 


if^r^f  a  i'lmma 


f7 


Ii> 


•     M'ull',.''-    "  nilr 

ij-^.n.  ,^t  -fi  tiRHurgixjj  oji  hill  .sledgt  s  uor  tliCii'  weight, 


r| 


'♦, 


// 


;".  //■    /.>,'f.    I)ix.;,rf 


Tfa 


11    I 


i 


W^ 


1 1  ****f|3**'^"'' 


I 


f'-j!.lt-in:.i  U(r  u»   }»!fl 


Peary' »  Claimt 


87 


in  the  style,  the  tenor,  and  the  deacriptions  after  Bartlett  left 
him;  and  the  new  introduction  at  this  point  are  noticeable 
features.  Then,  too,  Peary's  description  of  sky,  water,  weather, 
color  of  .the  ice,  and  absence  of  Ian  i  at  the  Pole,  is  so  identical 
with  Cook's  previous  portrayal  as  to  suggest  at  once  the  thought 
of  plagiarism.  This  has  been  noticed  by  many  critics,  but 
separated  from  other  matters  would  be  of  little  importance. 
Finally  much  of  the  book  is  replete  with  praise  of  the  "Peary 
system,"  "Peary  sledges,"  "Peary  plan."  "Peary  caribou," 
"Peary  experience,"  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  fix  the  attention 
upon  the  story  itself.  One  is  constantly  reminded  that  ego- 
mania and  insincerity  are  mseparable. 

However,  it  was  not  the  style  alone  which  made  me  con- 
stantly question  the  genuineness  of  Peary's  claims.  There  is 
not  a  single  matter  pertaming  to  the  expedition  or  its  activities 
after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  at  87"  47'  on  April  «,  where 
sufficient  data  are  recorded  to  be  certun  of  the  purported  facts, 
that  did  not  appear  to  me  even  on  first  reatUng  to  be  improbable. 
The  statements  in  one  section  of  the  book  seem  to  contradict 
those  All  another  beyond  a  posMbiUty  of  reconciliation,  but 
Peary  bases  his  allegations  upon  these  two  contradictory 
positions.  Other  notable  contradictions  are  found  in  referc  « 
to  the  going  aud  the  drift  of  the  ice.  So  involved  are  his  state- 
ments that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  locate  all  his  camps, 
to  know  accurately  in  what  direction  he  traveled  each  day; 
where  he  was  at  the  end  of  a  march;  at  what  time  of  day,  or  on 
what  date  he  went  into  camp.  Furthermore,  he  creates  an 
entirely  different  impression  of  his  own  part  in  the  journey  than 
that  which  is  indicated  by  Henson's  report  and  photographs. 

The  fact  that  he  fills  pages  with  non-essential  details  and 
omits  man\'  important  matters  observed  by  other  explorers  is  at 
least  unscientific.  A  few  examples  are  sufficient  illustratiiHi. 
He  makes  no  plotting  of  his  rout*  except  a  rough  line  on  an 
ordinary  map  without  dates,  directions,  or  distances,  and 
records  no  barometer  readings  while  on  the  Polar  Sea.  He 
gives  no  inventory  of  the  cargoes  on  his  sledges  nor  their  weight. 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeovered 


1    ». 


Hi. If. 


noi  the  weight  of  the  sledges  or  individual  dogs.    He  took  no 
!»oat  for  crossing  open  leads;  provid  d  no  nautical  instruments 
to  guide  the  supporting  pRrties  on  their  return  to  land,  although 
Peary  claims  that  some  of  thcjii  traveled  tm  the  ice  floes  farther 
north  on  the   Polar  Sea,  than  the  foot  of  man  had  ever  trod; 
they  had  no  cooking  apparatus;  no  report  was  made  of  their 
activities;  the  location  of  the  expedition  was  never  known  aa 
any  day  during  the  journey,  because  no  l<mgitude  was  taken; 
even  the  compass  variations  were  not  known;  the  drift  of  the 
ice  floes  is  overlooked  in  the  calculations,  and  omtradicted  in 
the  descriptions;  although  th*t  drift  is  known  to  be  easterly. 
Peary  claims  the  impossible  feat  of  having  traveled  over  this 
drifting  ice  a  distano.  of  nearly  1000  miles  of  latitude,  retummg 
to  the  starting  point  on  land  m  the  drifting  tracks  of  the  out- 
ward march,  without  a  serious  fault  or  displacement  m  the 
trail;  not  one  complete  bottom  sounding  is  furnished  as  evidence. 
Obviously  false  is  Peary's  location  of  the  sun  in  the  observations 
which  he  alleges  to  have  made  at  the  Pole.    His  photographs 
at  the  Pole  show  shadows  on  the  wrong  side.    He  claims  a  rate 
of  speed  which  is  impossible.    He  travels  in  an  unprecedented 
manner  without  delay  or  obstruction.    It  is  doubtful  whether 
a  book  was  ever  published  purj^crting  to  be  a  genuine  narrative 
of  exploration  that  on  first  reading  bears  so  many  earmarks  of  a 
suspicious  nature  as  are  found  withir.  the  covers  of  Peary's 
North  Pole. 

Aside  from  these  questionable  pomts  in  Peary's  book,  his 
choice  of  companions  for  the  alleged  final  dash  to  the  Pole  is 
noticeable.  At  87"  47' he  sent  Bartlett  back  to  hmd.  Bartlett 
is  an  intelligent  man  whose  testimony,  if  corroborative,  would 
have  fixed  Peary's  place  in  history.  However,  Peary  preferred 
Henson  a  body  servant  of  over  20  years'  servitude.  Although 
he  is  an  intelligent  negro,  Peary  writes  of  him :"  He  is  as  subject 
to  my  will  as  the  fingers  of  my  right  hand."*  Under  these 
circumsta:^ce8,  Henson  cannot  be  considered  an  entirely  satis- 
factory witness,  as  he  would  in  a  contest  naturally  be  prejudiced 

*Nortk  PoU,  Page  £71. 


...JUM^fi^ 


Peary't  CUdnu 


n 


in  Peary*«  favor.  Peary  muit  have  understood  thu.  How- 
ever, it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Henson's  diary  of  the  trip 
north  of  the  Bartlett  Camp,  upon  which  he  based  his  lectures 
and  publications  during  Peary's  absence  in  Europe,  contradicts 
Peary's  diary  in  every  important  allegation. 

As  if  Peary's  own  statements  relating  to  matters  in  the 
far  North  were  insuflRcient  to  stimulate  curiosity  and  skepticism, 
there  followed  in  an  attempt  to  corroborate  Peuxy,  the  farcical 
proceedings  of  the  committee  of  the  National  Geographic 
Society  at  Washington  in  a  pretended  investigation  of  Peary's 
claims;  their  partisan  exhibition  later  at  the  Congressional 
hearing;  their  map  and  plotting  which  bears  in  every  line  the 
easily  discernible  evidence  of  its  spuriousness. 

These  and  many  indicaticms  not  mentioned,  present  such 
convincing  evidence  of  a  hidden  mystery  in  the  narrative,  that 
the  writer  thinks  the  libraries  of  the  world  may  be  searched  m 
vain  for  another  instance  in  exploration  literature  where  in- 
stantly the  reader  is  so  impressed  with  the  evident  intent  to 
conceal  and  mystify,  or  where  the  attempt  to  do  so  is  executed 
so  climisily;  where  consequently  the  mysteries  are  so  easily 
straightened  out;  and  where  the  paradoxes,  pretenses  and 
absurdities,  are  by  analysis  so  easily  crumpled  up.  These 
remarkable  coincidences  pointing  unmistakably  in  one  direction 
like  the  finger  of  scorn,  surely  are  significant  of  something.  This 
analysis  will  attempt  to  bring  to  light  the  hidden  truth. 

Perhaps  a  more  astounding  revelation  even  than  the 
knowledge  that  these  incongruities  are  known  to  exist  in  a 
narrative  of  exploration,  is  the  fact,  that  the  story  itself  has 
been  almost  universally  accepted  as  true.  The  analysb  of  this 
feature  may  possibly  be  as  interesting  as  the  review  of  Peary's 
alleged  journey  itself,  because  it  imfolds  a  combination  and  a 
conspiracy  and  brings  to  light  a  condition  of  affairs,  undreamed 
of  in  ordinary  philosophy.  But  even  this  revelation  does  not 
solve  all  of  the  questions.  It  becomes  necessary  to  expose  to 
some  extent  the  part  taken  by  millionaires  vrith  plethoric  purses 
and  philanthropic  minds,  but  with  an  itching  for  distinction 


■i'. 


So 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


m 


i^l 


who  are  willing  to  support  an  unproved  cause,  and  by  indirection 
to  purchase  the  doubtful  honor,  of  having  their  names  attached 
to  fictitious  capes  and  camps  in  the  distant  Polar  Sea.  This 
exposure  coincidentally  furnishes  valuable  information  as  to  the 
wonderful  power  of  the  press  under  modem  organization,  and 
of  the  far-reaching  evil  consequences  that  follow  the  pollution 
of  the  foimtain  of  public  news. 

The  first  thing  that  challenged  my  credulity  in  the  published 
statements  of  the  two  explorers  on  their  emergence  from  the 
north  was  the  parallel  tables  of  marches  and  distances  in  the 
New  York  Herald,  illustrating  the  journeys  of  Peary  and  Cook 
from  land  to  the  Pole  and  back.  When  I  saw  the  sudden  in- 
crease of  speed  in  Peary's  column  on  the  first  march  after  Bart- 
lett  left  him,  and  the  accelerating  speed  daily  made  thereafter, 
one  day  equalling,  and  all  but  one  day  exceeding  the  best  day 
that  had  been  accomplished  by  Bartlett;  and  when  I  noted 
how  much  the  expedition  was  detained  by  weather,  leads, 
obstructions,  etc.,  during  the  30  days  that  Bartlett  was  with  it, 
and  noted  that,  thereafter,  it  was  not  delayed  a  single  day  or 
even  a  half  day,  but  continued  making  phenomenal  speed,  my 
curiosity  prompted  me  to  make  a  research  from  such  data  as 
were  available,  to  ascertain  if  these  alleged  facts  could  be  true 
This  was  my  first  critical  thought  on  the  subject  of  |x>lar  claims, 
but  my  curiosity,  instead  of  being  satisfied  was  only  further 
aroused,  and  I  could  not  rest,  until  this  analysis  was  written. 

Inasmuch  as  Peary's  claim  for  speed  is  indicative  of  the 
character  of  his  entire  story,  I  shall  analyze  that  feature  first. 
Before  doing  so,  it  is  well  to  explain  the  terms  that  are  used  in 
the  diagrams  and  tables  in  order  to  make  the  analysis  clear. 

There  are  three  designations  used  for  the  term  "miles." 
FIRST:  "NAUTICAL"  or  "geographical  miles"  (6080.26 
ft.)  denotes  actual  progress  over  the  earth's  surface  (or  difference 
in  latitude).  This  designation  is  used  in  making  comparisons 
both  b  speed  and  in  latitude.  SECOND:  "STATUTE 
MILES"  (5280  ft.)  means  miles  as  landsmen  underst«id  the 
word.    The  term  is  used  in  order  to  make  the  actual  distance 


Peary's  Claims 


31 


clear  to  the  general  reader.     1  nautical  mile  is  1.15  statute 
miles.    THIRD:    "ROUTE    MILES,"    means    the    statute 
miles  via  the  route  traveled.    Without  a  pedometer  or  its 
eo>  "v   Muit  the  distance  traveled  over  a  devious  drifting  polar 
.  T.  "oute,  ciirin  *  be  known  until  the  extent  of  the  DETOURS 
■vl  DRIFT  i-  known.    Detours  plus  Drift,  i.  e.  the  Deviation 
In  II   a  itiaig  it  line  is  the  ROUTE  MILES,  or  the  actual 
miles  travei(  i  over  the  route.    For  example:    If  one  takes  a 
circuitous  route  15  miles  long  to  reach  a  point  10  miles  distant 
in  a  straight  line,  the  Deviation  is  5  miles  and  15  indicates  the 
ROUTE  MILES.    It  is  Route  Miles,  not  the  progress  made, 
that  tests  pedestrianism,  leg  efficiency  and  endurance.     It  is 
Route  Miles,  therefore,  which  are  important  in  polar  explora- 
tion.    In  determining  route  miles  the  arctic  explorer  has  at 
least  three  causes  of  deviation  to  consider;  viz.,  detours,  current 
and  leeward  drift. 

Detours  are  caused  by  leads,  (open  water  spaces  in  the  polar 
ice  pack)  ice  hills,  and  obstructions  of  various  kinds,  which  make 
it  difficult  to  determine  the  exact  per  cent  of  deviation.    Nansen 
and  Johansen  who  encountered  no  leads  going  north,  record 
deviation  from  a  straight  course  by  detours  alone  of  over  10 
per  cent.     Borup  writes*  that  while  he  was  with  Peary,  they 
actually  traveled  IS  miles  to  make  10  miles  of  northing,  which 
is  30  per  cent  for  detours.    The  descriptions  and  the  photo- 
graphs of  the  ice  surface  made  by  Peary  and  Henson,  and  by  all 
other  arctic  explorers,  indicate  that  40  to  50  per  cent  would  be 
a  more  correct  allowance.    I  shall,  however,  in  the  following 
tabulation  of  Peary's  speed  use  the  nominal  allowance  of  10 
per  cent  for  detours.     It  is  doubtful  if  any  one  could  walk  for 
10  hours  anywhere  on  the  earth's  surface  without  a  path  to 
guide  him,  and  not  add  more  than  10  per  cent  deviation  to 
a  level  and  a  straight  line.    He  certwnly  could  not   drive  a 
caravan  of  harnessed  dogs  that  straight,  even  over  a  level 
surface.    A  10  per  cent  allowance  for  detours  is  obviously  well 
within  the  fact,  although  the  physical  effect  of  detours  cannot  be 
*A    Tenderfoot  teUh  Peary.     Page  174. 


32 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Wi 


adequately  estimated  in  miles,  be  ause  traveling  over  ice  hills 
is  excessively  exhaustive  as  compared  with  traveling  the  same 
distance  on  level  ice. 

The  next  cause  of  deviation  to  consider  in  traveling  over 
polar  ice  floes  is  current  and  leeward  dnit,  i.  e.,  the  adverse  drift 
of  the  ice  itself,  caused  by  tides,  currents,  and  winds.     It  is 
possible  that  the  standard  current  of  the  circum-polar  sea  under 
the  ice  over  which  Peary  traveled,    was    fairly   constant    in 
direction  and  velocity;  but  the  movement  of  the  ice  was  affected 
by  winds,  which  vary  in  direction,  in  force  and  m  duration. 
Consequently,  the  movements  of  the  ice  were  influenced  through 
its  wetted  su-face  by  currents  of  the  water,  and  through  its  diy 
surface  by  currents  of  the  air.     It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to 
plot  upon  a  map  accurately  the  resultant  path  of  the  ice  formed 
by  these  counter- movements.     At  best  it  can  only  be  conject- 
ured from  such  data  as  are  available.    The  known  and  con- 
jectural currents  of  the  Polar  Sea  are  shown  on  map  No.  2.* 
This  map  shows,  as  do  all  maps,  that  the  known  ocean  drift 
on  Peary's  route  is  to  the  east,  crossing  it  at  right  angles. 
This  fact  is  confirmed  by  Peary  in  The  North  Pole,  and  in  his 
plotting  of  his  1906  expedition.     Other  recorded  facts  illustrate 
quite  accurately  the  trend  of  the  different  currents  in  the  North 
Polar  Ocean  ( the  speed  of  this  drift  is  estimated  by  all  writers 
to  be  from  3  to  5  miles  per  day).    Timbers  recognized  as 
Siberian  discovered  on  the  southwest  coast  of  Greenland  by 
Nansen;  the    positively  identified  wreckage  of    the  Jeanette 
found  on  the  southwest  coast  of  Greenland  three  years  after  her 
destruction  on  the  New  Siberian  Islands;  the  plotted  drift  of  the 
Fram;  the  plotted  drift  of  the  Jeanette;  the  plotted  route  of 
Nansen  and  Johansen  with  their  sledges;  these  facts  taken  into 
consideration  with  the  known   length  of  time  and   with  the 
distances,  establish  approximately  the  swiftness  of  this  current 
and  its  effect  upon  the  floating  ice. 

Before  this  can  accurately  be  done,  however,  another  factor 
must  be  considered,  i.  e,  the  leeward  drift  caiised  by  the  winds. 
This  phenomenon  has  been  noted  by  all  arctic  explorers.     Cagni 
♦End  of  Book. 


dKHmm 


Pear y^ a  Claims 


33 


writing  of  his  farthest  north,  says:     "After  marching  nine  days 
to   the   southeast,   we  are    nearly  on    the    same  meridian.' 
He  drifted  from  longitude  65°  20'  east,  to  48°  40'  east,  m  about 
17  days.    The  standard  current  drift  was  southwest.    There- 
re,  the  true  measure  of  his  actual  drift,  if  known,  would 
perhaps  be  more  than  double  the  indication  from  the  difference 
in  longitude.    The  route  of  the  Fram  (Map  No.  2)  shows  that 
she  was  twice  as  long  imprisoned  in  the  ice  as  she  would  have 
been,  had  she  not  been  detained  by  leeward  drift,  or  by  the  tides. 
The  drift  of  the  Jeanette,  indicates  a  greater  deviation  from  these 
causes  t'  an  that  of  the  Fram,  or  over  100  per  cent.    The  journey 
of  Delou^  over  the  ice  floes  after  the  Jeanette  was  wrecked  shows 
more  than  100  per  cent  deviation  from  drift.     The  plot  of 
Nansen  and  Johansen's  sledge  route  after  leaving  the  Fram. 
shows  a  trifle  over  40  per  cent  added  to  travel  from  the  combined 
effect  of  leeward  and  current  drift  and  tides.     This  is  misleading 
in  a  way,  because  Nansen's  observations  were  taken  long  in- 
tervals apart.    As  is  customary  with  navigators,  he  draws  a 
straight  line  from  one  known  location  to  the  next  known 
location.    If  he  could  have  taken  observations  and  fixed  his 
location  as  often  as  did  Sverdrup  on  the  Fram  and  drawn  his 
lines  as  often,  his  plotting  undoubtedly  would  have  been  similar 
to  that  of  the  Fram.    It  probably  would  have  shown  a  higher 
per  cent  because  the  current  and  leeward  drift  as  well  as  the 
tides  would  all  have  shown  against  his  line  of  march.    The  Fram 
and  the  Jeanette  had  no  fixed  line  of  march.     They  drifted  with 
the  ice.    The  leeward  drift  and  tides  alone  added  100  per  cent 
deviation  to  the  standard  current  drift.    Consequently,  for 
comparison  with  Nansen,  these  three  drifts  should  be  added 
together.    It  is  warrantable  to  assume  that  had  Nansen  known 
his  exact  location  daUy  and  set  his  course  accordingly,  his 
plotting  wouW  have  shown  a  deviation  caused  by  the  combined 
effect  of  current,  leeward  and  tidal  drift,  of  not  less  than  100 
per  cent  from  a  straight  line. 

Now  to  check  up  the  allowance  for  drift  in  Peary's  case. 
He  did  not  know  his  longitude  at  any  point  on  his  route,  and 


i'  I 


IK, 


!  i  :li. 


i1^ 


i  \m 


84 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


therefore,  draws  a  straight  line  from  Cape  Columbia  to 
the  Pole.  It  was  all  he  could  do,  with  the  information  he 
possessed.  But  his  travels  could  not  have  been  in  a  straight 
line,  for  the  standard  current  drift  on  his  route  north  of 
Cape  Columbia  is  easterly.  Peary's  plotting  on  his  map  of 
1906  indicates  imperfectly  that  while  he  was  in  camp  at  the 
Big  Lead  unable  to  cross,  he  drifted  12  d^rees  of  longitude 
eastward  in  15  days,  or  over  4  nautical  miles  per  day  directly 
across  the  trail  of  1909,  which  we  are  now  considering,  and  at 
right  angles  thereto.  He  wrote  in  his  book*  that  on  the  second 
day  out  from  land  in  1909  when  he  encountered  the  first  open 
water,  "On  the  other  side  there  was  no  sign  of  Bartlett's  trail." 
This  means  that  the  lateral  movements  (that  is  east  and  west) 
of  the  ice  shore  of  the  lead  had  carried  the  trail  along  with  it. 
He  reports  that  the  trail  was  afterwards  found  a  mile  and  a  half 
distant.  This  only  indicates  that  there  was  a  current,  and 
shows  the  distance  that  it  carried  one  side  of  the  lead,  farther 
than  the  other.  Both  sides  may  have  drifted  many  miles  in 
the  same  current.  Again  he  writes :t  "The  morning  of  the 
11th  was  clear  and  calm,  that  night  the  ice  was  rafting  about 
our  camp  with  the  movement  of  the  tide.  The  continual 
grinding,  groaning  and  cracking  as  the  pieces  of  ice  crushed 
together,  kept  up  all  night  long. "  This  statement  is  indefinite 
as  to  distance,  but  the  stupendous  force  of  a  current,  is  well 
indicated.  This  represents  eastward  current  drift.  In  1909 
when  the  party  reached  the  Bartlett  Camp,  Bartlett  foimd  the 
latitude  to  be  87°  47'.  Peary  writing  of  this  incident  saystj 
"Our  latitude  was  the  direct  result  of  the  northerly  wind  of  the 
last  two  days  which  had  crowded  the  ice  southward  as  we 
traveled  over  it  northward.  We  had  traveled  ftiUy  twehe  miles 
more  than  his  observations  showed  in  the  last  five  marches,  but 
had  lost  them  by  the  crushing  up  of  young  ice  in  our  rear  and 
the  closing  of  the  leads."    This  is  southerly  Uevoard  drift. 

*North  Pole.  Page  iti. 
^North  PoU.  Page  232. 
tNortk  Pole,  Page  268. 


Mm 


Peary's  Claims 


35 


These  are  instances   (1906  and   1909)  where  Peaxy  himseU 
funiishes*  some  data  by  which  his  drift  can  be  checked. 

If  Peary  was  driven  back  (southward)  twelve  miles  m  the 
two  days  preceding  his  arrival  at  the  Bartiett  Camp,  or  6  miles 
a  day  as  he  says  by  wind  alone,  (but  as  he  did  not  know  his 
longitude  he  may  have  been  driven  by  the  same  wmd  as  far  m 
other  directions),  he  was  very  probably  driven  eastward  also 
by  the  ocean  current,  possibly  as  much  as  he  says  he  was  in 
1906  (or  4  miles  per  day).    These  combined  influences  would 
have  thrown  him  off  his  course  in  zigzags,  some  12  or  15  miles 
per  day.     His  average  length  of  marches,  which  were  affected 
by  wind  to  the  BarUett  Camp,  was  12  miles  per  day  m  a  straight 
Ime     If  this  situation  were  left  without  further  explanation, 
it  would  indicate  a  deviation  of  perhaps  100  per  cent  from  a 
straight  line.     As  he  gives  no  other  date  whereby  to  pursue 
Ihis  method  of  illustration  further,  the  subject  is  left  ahnost 
entirely  to  conjecture.    Possibly  the  ocean  current  between 
Cape  Columbia  and  the  Pole  is  not  so  swift  as  in  other  parts  of 
the  Polar  Ocean  where  Nansen,  Sverdrup  on  the  From,  DeLong. 
and  Cagni  plotted  then-  drift.    Therefore,  to  be  safely  withm 
the  truth.  Peaiy's  drift  will,  in  these  calcuktions.  be  fixed  at 
less  than  one  third  of  theirs,  and  30  per  cent  will  be  added  to  a 
straight  line  route  for  de\-iations  caused  by  drift. 

This  allowance  evidently  is  not  enough  or  exact,  but  it  is 
sufficient  for  present  purposes.  Not  aU  winds  are  adverse,  but 
a  large  majority  in  Peaiy's  case,  must  have  been.  If  the  wmd 
blew  only  from  the  four  cardinal  points,  only  one  of  the  four 
would  have  been  altogether  favorable.  In  fact,  when  traveUng 
north,  every  wind  except  south  would  throw  one  off  his  course. 
Many  winds,  however,  that  take  one  off  his  course  are  still  to 
some  extent  favorable,  as  the  net  result  may  be  advantageous. 
In  going  north  any  southerly  wind  between  southeast  and 
southwest,  while  it  would  throw  one  off  his  course  might  never- 
theless carry  him  nearer  his  goal.  But  to  take  advantage  of 
this,  the  navigator  must  constantly  know  the  extent  of  hia 
*North  Pah.  Page  Mi. 


^.^.^A-f^f^  ■-t.\i'f*v:h^,B'. 


i  Ife. 

I'  f 
r  'i' 


86 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


drift,  and  know  his  new  positions,  in  order  to  shape  his  new 
courses  accordingly;  otherwise  he  would  himself  create  new 
deviations  by  heading  in  the  wrong  direction.  It  was,  however, 
impossible  for  Peary  to  be  aided  in  this  way.  He  did  not  know 
his  longitude  or  his  location  on  a  single  day  enroute,*  hence  a 
large  niajority  of  winds  must  liave  been  adverse,  and  a  drift 
off  his  course  in  any  direction  was  a  disadvantage.  The  water 
currents  on  Peary's  route  were  easterly,  and  every  day  that  he 
was  moved  eastward,  was  inmiical  to  his  progress. 

The  most  serious  effect  of  adverse  drift  in  high  latitudes  is 
yet  to  be  mentioned;  and  it  is  especially  fatal  to  accurate  navi- 
gation when  not  known  in  the  extreme  high  latitude  we  are  now 
considering.  At  82°  north,  a  lateral  displacement  in  location  of 
one  nautical  mile,  east  or  west,  means  an  error  in  longitude  of 
over  7  minutes.  At  85°  north,  it  means  an  error  of  over  11 
minutes  in  longitude.  At  88°  north,  it  means  28  minutes  in 
longitude,  and  at  89"  an  error  of  one  nautical  rnile  east  or  west 
would  show  the  enormous  error  of  over  57  minutes  in  longitude, 
practically  ONE  DEGREE.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that 
in  such  high  latitudes,  a  lateral  drift  is  a  most  serious  deviation 
from  a  straight  line  multiplying  into  stupendous  percentages 
as  one  approaches  the  Pole.  Therefore,  considering  the  known 
and  conjectural  ocean  currents,  the  plotted  routes  of  previous 
explorers,  Peary's  own  related  experiences,  and  his  acknowl- 
edged ignorance  of  his  longitude;  and  hearing  in  mind  that  the 
discussion  concerns  travel  in  very  high  latitudes;  it  is  almost 
absurd  to  place  the  loss  by  drift  as  low  as  30  per  cent.  It  is  at 
least  a  conservative,  and  suflScient  estimate.f 

It  would  be  unnecessary  to  include,  or  to  consider  devia- 
tions to  arrive  at  the  credibility  of  Peary's  claims  for  speed. 
His  alleged  straight  line  distances  are  impossible.  The  truth, 
however,  demands  that  deviations  be  considered  for  an  in- 
telligent analysis,  and  a  correct  portrayal  of  the  facts.  We 
shall,  therefore,  allow  10  per  cent  for  detours,  and  30  per  cent 

•Pagp«  99-101,  Test  at  Washington  D.  C. 

tFor  further  data  on  drift,  percent,  etc.  see  Appen'liz  t. 


Peary' 8  Claims 


87 


for  combined  current  and  leeward  drift,  which  estimates  have 
l)een  shown  to  be  indubitably  withm  the  facts  of  the  case. 

The  diar.rams  which  will  be  used  freely  in  the  analysis  of 
speed,  are  explained  as  follows:  Diagram  No.  3*  is  an  exact 
portrayal,  as  Peary  records  it  of  his  alleged  journey  from  land 
to  the  Pole,  back  to  land,  and  thence  on  to  the  steamer 
lUmevelt  at  his  winter  quarters  at  Cape  Sheridan.  It  is  Peary's 
diagram,  and  should  have  been  made  by  him.  It  gives  lue 
distances  in  nautical  (or  geographical  miles)  as  Peary  gives 
them  in  his  narrative,  (the  actual  distances  of  latitude  claimed 
to  have  been  made  over  the  earth's  surface).  This  diagram  is 
usetl  in  all  references  to  and  comparisons  of  speed.  It  is  com- 
plete with  dates,  camps,  marches,  non-marches  and  the  dates 
and  points  of  the  return  of  the  supporting  parties,  all  of  which 
is  explained  in  the  chart.  Diagram  No.  Of  is  drawn  from 
Diagram  No.  3  on  a  larger  scale  and  represents  the  district  in 
Diagram  No.  3  north  from  Camp  No.  26.  It  is  provided  with 
compass  directions,  sun's  direction,  time,  etc. 

It  is  now  necessary  to  know  exactly  what  Peary's  story  is. 
He  claims  that  his  dash  to  the  Pole  took  place  as  follows. 
Early  in  the  spring  of  1909  after  wintering  at  Cape  Sheridan, 
he  assembled  his  expedition  at  Cape  Colun^bia  90  miles  further 
west.  He  left  this  point  Lat.  83"  07'  on  March  1,  1909,  and 
reached  the  Bartlett  Camp  87°  47'  on  March  31,  30  days  and 
18  hours  enroute.  The  distance  is  280  miles.f  Four  supporting 
parties  accompanied  him  at  the  start,  commanded  by  Goodsell, 
Borup,  Marvin  and  Bartlett.  These  men,  each  with  his  special 
equipment,  returned  to  Cape  Columbia  in  the  order  named. 
Goodsell  traveled  with  the  expedition  14  days;  Borup  21  days; 
Marvin  26  days;  and  Bartlett  31  days.f  On  April  2,  1909, 
the  day  after  BarUett  turned  back,  Peary  with  the  negro  Henson 
and  four  Eskimos,  started  north,  with  no  support  except  the 
supplies  they  took  with  them  on  the  sledges.    Peary  claims 

♦Opposite  Page  38. 

T  Diagram  9,  opposite  Page  38. 


88 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


that  with  this  equipment  he  went  to  a  point  seven  miles  beyond 
the  Pole,  traveled  16  miles  in  cross  directions  near  the  Pole, 
and  returned  to  land,  584  miles  altogether,  in  21  days  arriving 
April  23,  at  6  a.  m.  In  Peary's  narrati^  ^  it  was  this  claim  for 
phenomenal  speed  over  long  stretches  of  polar  ice,  always  when 
he  was  alone  i.  e.,  without  supporting  parties,  that  attracted 
special  attention.  We  are  now  in  a  position  to  review  this 
feature  of  his  story,  following  Peary's  method  and  dividing  his 
alleged  travels  into  two  distinct  parts,  viz.:  (1)  Between  land 
and  Bartlett  Camp  unth  supporting  parties.  (2)  North  of 
Bartlett  Camp  and  back  to  land  withotd  supporting  parties. 


I^r 


*.--; 


!(l' 


1* 


V 


i'' 


i  ..  I 


hm 


k 


CHAPTER   II 

DETAIL  ANALYSIS  OF  SPEED 

For  conyenienc-e  I  have  tahulated  Peary's  alleged  marches 
shown  on  Diagram  No.  .'{  into  numl)ered  groups  in  Td>U  1* 
Group  1  shows  that  in  his  journey  north  from  Cape  Columbia 
to  the  point  where  Ctti)tttin  Bartlett  with  the  last  supporting 
party  turned  back,  that  Peary  consumed  30  days  and  18  hours 
and  made  280  miles,  an  average  of  9.  1  miles  per  day  of  latitude 
(or  9.  1  nautical  miles  directly  rorth).  The  speed  in  this  group 
will  be  lijed  as  the  standard  by  -^ieh  all  other  claims  for  speed 
will  be  measured  or  compare-  .is  is  the  only  group  that 

shows  Peary's  record  accompanied  by  supporting  parties. 
Group  2  indicates  that  during  Pearl's  alleged  absence  of  7 
days  and  18  hours  north  of  the  Bai-tlett  Camp,  (going  and 
returning  to  that  camp)  he  traveled  804  nautical  miles,  averaging 
40.  3  miles  for  eveiy  day  after  Bartlett  turned  back,  as  against 
9,  1  (Group  1)  miles  with  the  help  of  Bartlett  and  his  other 
supporting  parties.  To  realize  what  this  claim  rrvers  as  a 
matter  of  physical  effort,  the  average  in  ROUTE  MILES  in  the 
table  is  66.  3  miles  of  actual  marching  daily  over  polar  ice  floes. 
Group  3  indicates  that  Peary  traveled  south  from  the  Bartlett 
Camp  to  land  280  nautical  miles,  in  13  days  and  12  hours  as 
against  30  days  and  18  hours  going  north  with  his  support'  g 
parties,  an  avenige  of  20.7  miles  as  against  9.1  miles.  Group  5 
shows  still  more  remarkable  achievements  concerning  the 
alleged  movements  north  of  Camp  No.  26.  The  allegaticm  is 
that  Peary  left  Camp  No.  26  (89"  25')  on  the  i>'h  of  April  at  10 
p.  m.  and  returned  to  the  same  camp  April  7,  at  midnight, 
having  been  absent  2  days  and  2  hours.  The  group  indicates 
that  he  traveled  in  that  time  108  nautical  m.Iss  (124.2  statute 
•Page  40. 

39 


MtLi-^.  k.^ 


^jf'-l^ 


40 


If; 


III: 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 

Table  in  Groups  of 


Table  I 


2«  Cape  Columbia  to 
Camp  Bartlett  No 
2«~280  mi. 

Camp  Bartlett  No. 
««  North  via  Pole 
and  back  again  to 
Camp  Bartlett  No. 
2«,  134+86+184- 


Camp  Bartlett  to 
j,  ~". .  I  ^*Pe  Columbia  re- 
jiumbial   tummg  South 

'^^^  *'^^*'  f^^P"  ^'"titute  the  full  round 

*      I  Apr.  6.     10  a.  m.|~^r1  A^Tfl       I ~I T " 

jApr.fl.       6p.m      87  T^amp     Jessup 
'  '  I  I  No.  27.  No  march- 

mg. 


Apr.  5,     10  p.m.     20 


Apr.  7.     i,^  ^"^^^^l^r^;;^ 


Apr.  6-7.  18  p.  n,  J^i^Tp^^^ 


back  again  to  Camp 
No  86  via  North 
Pole  36+86+36=- 

"       Apr.  8,      sa.m.\    a    U^riT"^ 1 " ■ 

Apr.  83.     6  a.  m.  Cape      Camp  Bartlett  No. 

I,?^r     If^^^.'^'^P^Colum- 
lumbia'  bia  via  North  Pole 

134+36+184+280 
=584 


Apr.  6-7.  ,8  p.  m.!  A~~p^rrii;~^o 


Farthest  point  "A" 
south  to  Camp 
Bartlett    No.     82 

86+36+53+45- 
160 

Farthest  point  "A" 
south  to  Camp  No. 
*6j28+S6»e2 


/'  1  ,'; 


9SB 


1  HI 
flipl 

•  I  I  I  r  t  I  I  • 


fififiV   '^^'^^ 


4/oa^ 


/i)A,/kuj^i1$^S^^  ^S&lS^.aL 


^i^j^Ja^^w^'^s^moWP<^i»<>^i^  '^"mmov>mf»'^^'>€j^^^'¥>»^ 


SS^S^"" 


i 


I  '^^1 


ih 


If! 


Detail  Analyais  of  Speed 


41 


Alleged  Marches  Taken  From  Diagram  No.  1. 
Table  I 


ROUTE 
MILES 

Day.s 

Hrs. 

Total 
Nautical 
Miles 

Average 
Nautical 
Miles 

T.,tia 

statute 
Miles 

Average 
SUtute 
Miles 

Ave.  Sta.  Mi 
Plas  10  per 
Cent  Detours 

Ave.  SU. 
Mi.  Plus 
30%  Drift 
and  detours 

30 

18 

280 

9  1 

322 

10.5 

11.5 

14  95 

7 

13 

304 

40.3 

349.6 

46.4 

51.0 

66  3 

13 

12 

280 

20.7 

322 

23.8 

26.18 

33.32 

trip  864  Nautical  miles. 

0 

8 

2 

e 

108 

51.9 

124.2 

59.7 

65.7 
2  days  2  hrs. 

85.41 

(177.58) 

81 

1 

584 

27.7 

671.6 

31.9 

85 

45.5 

« 

18 

160 

58.0 

184 

66.9 

73.6 

95.68 

1 

0 

62 

62 

71.8 

71.3 

78.4 

101.92 

i 


W 
it 


42 


^a«  <A«  iVortA  Pole  Been  DucnpTed 
Tabu  l—ConHnwd 


No 
of 
Group 


FROM 


Data 


Camp 


TO 


10 


Apr.  6,       6  p.  m 


Date 


Camp 


27 


11 


Apr.  2,       .5  a.  m 


Apr.  7,     12  p.  m 


Names 
of  Camps 


Apr.  6-7.  12  p.  m. 


22 


Apr.  6,     12  p.  m 


26  Camp  Jessup  No. 
27  (between  sleeps 
sounding,  18  ©bs., 
photos,  etc.)  t  o 
Camp  No.  26  via 
Point  "A"  36+38 
■72 


12 


IS 


Apr.  5,     10  p.  m. 


26 


14 


Apr.  6,       0  p.  m 


[Apr.  23,     0a.m. Cape 
I  Co- 
lumbia 


Camp  Bartlett  No. 
22  to  Farthest 
Point  A,  134+10 
-144 


Apr.  6.     12  p.  m 


Apr.  2,      5  a.  m. 


27     Apr.  9,      6 p.m.* 


Farthest  Point  "A" 
to  Cape  Columbia 
26+36+53+44+ 
280-440 

Camp  No.  26  Far- 
thest Point  "A" 
36+10-46 


22      Apr.  6.     10  a.  m 


22 


27 


Camp  Jessup  No. 
27  to  Camp  Bart- 
lett via  Pole  36+ 
8fl+5S+45-170 

Camp  Bartlett  No. 
22  to  Camp  Jessup 
No.  27  (Polar 
Camp)  ««+20+2« 
+28+36-134 


*Exact  time  not  reported. 


Detail  Analysis  of  Speed 


4» 


Table  I — Continued 


ROUTE 
MILES 

Days 

Hrs. 

ToUl 
Nautical 
Miles 

Average 
Nautical 
Miles 

Total 
SUtute 
Miles 

Average 
Statute 
MUes. 

Ave.  Sta.  Mi. 
Plus  10  Per 
Cent  DetouM 

Ave.  Sta. 

Mi.  Plus 

80%  Drift 

and 

Detours 

1 

6 

78 

57.6 

82.8 

66.2 

72.9 

94.77 

4 

19 

144 

30.1 

165.6 

34.6 

38 

49.40 

IG 

6 

440 

«7.1 

506 

31.1 

34.2 

44.46 

1 

2 

46 

42.6 

52.0 

49 

53.0 

70.07 

3 

0 

170 

56.6 

195.5 

65.2 

71.7 

93.21 

4 

5 

1S4 

31.8 

154.1 

36.6 

40.3 

52.39 

44 


H(u  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


TABLK  II 

SHOWING  WHAT  WAS  DONE  AFTER  BARTLETT  TURNFD 

BACK.    AI.SO  SHOWINC;  A  COMPARIi^N  OF  SPPPn 

BEFORE  AND  AI-TEB  HE  TURliw)  BACK 

Taken  kbtjm  Table  I 


B 


D 


* 


Made  3  times  as  great  an  average 


Made  a  greater  average,  including  all  the 
days  on  the  whole  alleged  trip  north  to  the 
pole  and  beyond,  thence  back  to  land  (21 
days  and  1  hour)  than  the  Ixst  single  day's 
work  before  that  time  (See  Diagram  No.  3 
20  miles.) 


AFTER 


Speed  Group  Speed  Group 


BEFORE 


27.7 


Made  3  times  a.s  great  speed  in  any  one  day 
comparing  the  best  single  day's  work  in 
each  di-stnet.  (See  Diagram  No.  3.  20 
miles.) 


27.7 


9.1 


62 


Made  4.5  times  as  great  average  while  north 
of  Bartlett  Camp,  as  was  made  reachmg  it 
from  the  South. 


Made  in  one  disconnected  march  mthout 
«feep  April  0th.  6  p.  m.  to  April  7th,  at  mid 
nigiit. 


20 


40.3 


Made  ui  2  calendar  days  and  18  hours  from 

AprU  6th-7th,  midnight,  to  April  9th,  6  p.  m., 

58  nautiral  miles  a  day,  which  in  statute 

miles,  (addmg  10  per  cent  for  detours)  would 

make  73.6  miles  each  day  in  a  straight  line 

measurement. 


20 


9.1 


62.0 


160 


Made  m  one  disconnected  march,  practical- 
ly without  sleep,  from  April  3th,  10  p  m 
to  Apnl  7th,  midnight  (Camp  No.  26  to' 
tamp  No.  26.) 

—which   in  statute  mUes  plus  deviations 
would  make 


108 


177.581 


Detail  Analysis  of  Speed 


45 


miles)  in  a  straight  line  measurement,  or  (177.58  ROUTE 
MILES)  took  la  observations,  many  photos,  attempted  a 
sounding  of  1500  fathoms  and  yet  during  12  hours  of  this  time 
he  did  not  march.  He,  therefore,  must  have  traveled,  as  will 
he  seen,  a  distance  of  124.2  statute  miles  in  a  straight  line 
measurement,  or  177.58  ROUTE  MILES.  Group  8  indicates 
that  he  traveled  the  calendar  day  of  April  7,  from  midnight  to 
midnight  101.92  ROUTE  MILES. 

Peaiy's  story  of  the  first  section  of  his  trip  i. «.,  from  Cape 
Columbia  to  Bartlett  Camp,  is  briefly  that  he  was  30  days  and 
18  hours  enroute,  and  that  he  made  22  marches.     In  other 
words  there  were  only  22  days,  about  three  fourths  of  the  time 
enroute,  when  he  could  march.     9  days  for  various  reasons, 
he  did  not  march  at  all.    On  some  of  the  days  that  he  did 
march,  he  could  only  advance  6  miles,  and  only  on  2  days  did 
he  advance  20  miles.    His  average  advance  per  march  was  12.7 
miles.    With    the    assistance  of  his    ideal  equipment,    with 
supporting  parties  to  break  the  road  and  build  camps  ahead  so 
that  his  mam  party  could  conserve  their  energy,  Peary's  record 
shows  that  the  average  daily  progress  north  for  the  80  days  and 
18  hours  was  9.1  miles  of  latitude.    That  he  struggled  hard 
to  make  this  average  may  be  inferred  from  his  remark*  "The 
next  morning  I  put  Marvin  in  the  lead  to  pioneer  the  trail,  with 
mstructions  to  make  two  forced  marches  to  bring  up  the  average 
which  had  been  cut  down  by  the  last  two  short  ones."    The 
narrative  shows  that  on  the  days  when  he  was  able  to  make  20 
miles,  the  traveling  conditions  were  exceUent.    The  various 
reasons  why  he  could  not  every  day  equal  his  best  days  of  20 
miles,  are  explamed;  open  water  leads,  high  pressure  ridges, 
bhndmg  storms,  intense  cold,  broken  sledges,  and  other  un- 
avoidable delays  prevented  better  progress. 

It  is  quite  probable  that  if  the  travelmg  conditions  on  the 
two  days  when  he  made  20  miles  had  been  more  favorable,  or 
If  they  had  been  ideal,  and  his  equipment  had  been  in  perfect 
order,  he  might  have  made  a  little  more  than  20  miles  on  each 

*OuHook  Sept.  18.  1909,  Page  96. 


'  II 


f^  i:'» 


M 


46 


Htu  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


of  those  two  days,  but  probably  not  more  in  one  day  than  25 
or  26  nautical  miles,  because  more  than  that  has  never  yet  been 
made.  T^nth  a  similar  equipment,  in  one  day  of  consecuUve 
maichmg  over  the  polar  pack,  even  under  desperate  dr- 
cunristences.  Peary's  story  as  far  as  the  BarUett  Camp  is 
enUrely  convmcmg  as  to  progress,  and  tallies  with  tht  narratives 
of  all  polar  explorers.  To  l,e  fair,  the  going,  the  length  of 
marches,  and  the  rates  of  speed  claimed /rom  land  to  the  BarUett 
Camp  will  be  adopted  as  standards  by  which  like  factors  in 
other  parts  of  the  journey  will  be  measured  and  compared 

The  second  section  of  Peary's  trip*  i.e.,  from  BartlettCamp 
north  to  the  Pole  and  back  to  Cape  ColumbU.  aU  without 
supportmg  parties  took  place  between  April  2  at  5  a.  m.  and 
April  23  at  6  a.  m..  a  total  of  21  days  1  hour.     During  that  time 
he  claims  to  have  traveled  to  a  point  seven  miles  beyond  the 
Pole  with  16  miles  cross-marching,  and  to  have  returned  to 
land  a  total  distance  of  584  miles.    This  trip  may  for  con- 
vemence^  be  subdivided  into  two  parts.     (1)  The  travels  north 
of  the  BarUett  Camp  and  retum.f    (2)  The  trip  south  from 
Bartlett  Camp  or  the  return  to  knd.J    The  rates  of  si^-nr 
claimed  by  Peary  for  these  two  parts  of  his  trip  without  support^ 
ing  parties  are  shown  by  the  record  as  follows:  (geographical 
or  nautica.  miles  with  no  addition  for  deviations)  an  average 
of  30.1  miles  per  day  for  the  4  days  19  hours  going  north  from 
Bartlett  Camp  to  Camp  Jessup  (Polar  Camp)  and  ten  miles 
beyond;     an  average  of  58  miles  per  day  for  2  days  18  hours re- 
tummg  from  the  farthest  point  to  Bartlett  Camp.  160  miles*** 
«!  average  of  20.7  miles  per  day  for  13  days  12  hours  from'the 
Uartlett  Camp  to  Cape  Columbia  280  mUes  south.****  Summed 
up  as  shown  in  Group  6.  his  record  makes  it  appear  that  he 
traveled  after  leavmg  Bartlett  until  he  returned  to  land.  584 

•Table  1.  Group  6. 
tTable  1.  Group  «. 
{Table  1.  Group  3. 
••Table  1,  Group  10. 
••♦Table  1.  Group  7. 
♦•••Group  3    Table  1. 


Detail  Analysia  oj  Speed 


47 


miles  in  9\  days  1  hour,  an  average  of  27.7  miles  per  day  for 
every  day  he  was  absent,  which  is  a  greater  average  than 
Bartlett's  best  two  days  of  20  miles  going  north.  There  can 
be  no  dispute  as  to  whether  these  figures  correspond  to  Peary's 
narrative.  The  only  question  that  can  possibly  arise  regarding 
them  is  whether  or  not  the  speed  and  the  distances  claimed  to 
have  been  made  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  are  possible 
under  such  conditions  as  are  known  to  exist  on  the  moving  ice 
pack  of  the  Polar  Sea,  or  whether  they  are  in  fact  even  possible 
imder  any  conditions  that  could  possibly  have  existed  on  that 
sea.  Before  we  answer  these  questions,  however,  we  shall 
make  a  close  scrutiny  of  Peary's  story. 

Peary's  accoimt  of  this  first  sub-division  of  his  journey 
without  supporting  parties  is  that  between  the  days  of  April  2 
and  9,  he  joumeyetl  north  of  87"  47'  to  the  polar  camp,  went  36 
miles  in  reconnoitering  and  returned  to  Bartlett  Camp  a  distance 
of  304  nautical  miles.*  His  description  of  his  preparation  for 
this  dash  will  be  remembered.  He  said  he  had  reserved  all  his 
strength  for  it  and  was  physically  in  prime  condition,  that  his 
party,  consisting  of  six  men,  five  sledges  including  one  fur-lined 
riding  sledge  for  Peary's  personal  use,  and  sixty  days  supplies, 
imdertook  the  pacemaking  themselves,  broke  their  own  roads, 
built  their  own  igloos,  did  their  own  scouting,  and  attended  to 
the  routine  camp  work  morning  and  evening.  They  had  no 
one  upon  whom  they  could  call  when  fatigued  to  relieve  them, 
as  Bartlett  had.  Besides  this,  Bart  let'. ' .  as  young  and  vigorous 
— Peary  was  the  oldest  man  in  the  expedition,  and  to  some 
extent  a  cripple.  Under  these  circumstances,  if  Peary  could 
have  made  an  aver"*^  of  four  miles  per  day  after  Bartlett  left 
him,  it  would  Iwi,.  .  been  considered  very  creditable  in  com- 
parison with  Bartlett's  9.1  miles.  His  alleged  achievement, 
however,  being  different  deserves  close  scrutiny. 

About  t«n  o'clock  in  the  morning,  on  April  !?,  he  started 
out.  The  poing  "was  the  best  since  leaving  land."  He  claims 
to  have  n>aJe  25  miles.    This  distance,  if  it  were  made,  was 

♦Group  2— Table  I. 


48 


J' 


•ft. 


n<u  the  North  Pole  Httn  Du,  .n-ered 


2..  ,K.r  cent  greater  than  the  l,est  p«,vious  day',  n,  ,.h.  On  the 
■;;^.  tl.  «o,ng  was  the  sa.ne  a,  the  day  before,  that  is  to  Zl 
^'tnnceleanug  land,". .c^pi^i  the  beginning.  He  ,M^. 
niUes.  e,uaUu,g  Bartlett  s  best  day.     ^W,  this  on   Xe^  dfy 

t^te  IJc  n.r.^Ksmg  j>erfect.on  of  the  goin.^  a«  he  pro- .^,k«d 

claims  ti.at  h  n       7      '  P^*^^*''    '"^^'  '  '""'^^  he 

offThe  i,iL^^;  '^    ^'^'^"^'"^  'r  ^"""  "^  ^  ^"-t^h  "reeling 
On  \T  mu      .       "  '""''"''■  ^^^^  "delightrd   -  hi,  "heart  " 
On  the  6th,  altljouKii  .Kliectives  wp«.  Lk       »  j    -n 
desirerl  to  show  thJr  "xhuusted,  Peary  still 

r«i  ro  snou  that  '      going  was  minrov,;.'.     He  write*,   "Tf 
was  wamer  and  the  .eds  hauled  ..ier,"  2nd  .ll'^'h.L 

i.ft.,^'  1!^  ^'T'  '  ''''*  ^'""  ^^^h^l  Camp  No.  26*  on  Ar.r  5 
alter  makmg  four  ^a^-he.  north  .  Bartlett  Tamp  f^  •  on' 
that  basis  mvest  gate  \\]  it  he  ulUcu..  tr.  u        j  , 

by  which  he  .=.hed  C,„.p  s'H.^,  iV*":  ,o    :.     "\  Zr.T 

re^h  the  Pole  (.„„„,  „,^h  n.,    |,^  ^^ 

of  Se  nautical  ml  es  ii,  „  straiirh>     ,-      II  i  ' 

igloo  to  rest  •  l.ul «  Jitt  1  kT  ,  .  ""*'■'  "'"'  ""»  *'■ 

he  started  l;    oils    tt^^'K^t'f"    '"  ''•  '"•>    "  ^P"'  ''• 
Piftv  h"„r.  W  ,!^      •  "'■'"  "'"  *"  «'<'  "      '»■  Pole- 

.tc.„pNo;^r -'iirthrie;::!: r^^'i :ir,''  'T" 

»i^-  "^         «e.^  aned  to  xiavp  but 

•I>iagnnna  3  and  ». 


i  arn-- 
i  mu 
1  'rdt 
■  I  (listaii 


Detnil  Analyaia  oj  Speed 


40 


hort  uriHHtisfactory  ^leep  and  to  march  17"  .58  route  miles* 
.  aLT'»iiipl!^hni«nti  only  puralleled  in  the  ani>  Is  of  mythology. 
Aftt "  .irch  wel  •  hours,  or  until  10  ra.  oi  the  6th, 
covering  thirty  i  ilesf  h  >  presunied  he  wiia  in  le  vicinity 
of  the  P<  !<  Anyway  he  could  g  no  further.  He  had  com- 
pI'HpIy  sp"nt  bJras  If,  ■!  thn  supn  •  effort  to  fi^compli«h  the 
p  iibitiou  Oi  his  life      li.    therpfnrp  caller  a  hait,  a    .  established 


on  '  n  t  sp*         iS  1;  m   a> 
K        ssup      .  •!  wm-    tt 

Yet  with  th. 
tnko     he  last     ew    •■ 
hose     lys  an<.  aitrhi 
co(  sti       p*  ril  and    n 
T     AS  ;.■    uall.    '   ')  exii.i 
ufe  ">  pi.  (jose  !)eer 

b<'*'n  (V   lipleti  id 

ratint  the 
ne<  -^r  sl< 
''l«ii*es    j.nd 


pol 


ip,  which  he  named  Morris 


ill  tu;i' 

I 
for 


m  sight  I  was  to' 
Hccumt'lated  weari. 


narr 


,1 


i!f -essar,  . 
f :    v'Es,  then 

e  says  he 
s   pus! 

four  1  lurs* 
buildi 
«p.  11 


f^ary  to 

of  all 

andinauflu:.     .  sleep, 

to         across  me  all  at  once. 

.ealiz         the  moment  that  my 

tue.  'd.    A.>-       in  as  our  igloos  had 

bad    eaten  *  ^r  dinner  und  double 

,  I  tu  iied  in  for  a  f<  vv  hours  of  ;ibsolutely 

Henson  and  the  Eskimos  havirig  un  >aded  the 

them  in  readiness  for  such  repairs  as  were 
....  ... 


»ut,  weary  though  I  was  /  could  vnt       "j    long. 
re,  only  a  few  hours  later  when  I  w=..^ 

n  made  up  his  memorandums,  an<  '^  p.  m. 

1  atrain.    This  short  sleep  of  perfa  -e  or 

ill  t!     interval  from  sometime  after  ,  titer 

igloo     eating  dinner  and  feeding  dogs,  t  fore 

'm  obs  rvations  and  writing  diary  etc.,  mtiiawhile), 

vas  aii  tb'-  sleej.  that  he  was  able  to  get  for  50  hours,  or  from  the 

■e  he     ft  Camp  No.  26  in  latitude  s9»  25'  on  April  5,  before 

dnight  (10  p.  m.)  until   he  returned  to  that  camp  again,  at 

Tahli    i,  Group  5. 
1  lii-  fi'  >t  published  report  he  said  he  made  40  miles  on  this  day;  it 
'  '"  changed  it  to  SO;  but  S6  is  whiit  it  must  be  to  check  up 

com  uiili  his  alleged  observations, aa  will  be  evident  later  when  dis- 

cussiii^  t!.   t  suhjppt, 

XSorOi  Pole,  Page  «87. 

**IIen8on,  Page  135  in  his  book  says:   He  gave  orders  not  to  let  him 
sleep  for  more  than  four  hours. 


50 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeuvered 


mm 


midnight  April  7.  or  as  he  designates  it  (in  good  time)*  travel- 
ing meanwhile  177.58  route  f  miles. 

Nothing  in  record  history  equals  this  aUeged  march  of 
Apnl  5,  6,  and  7  of  fifty  hours.     Yet  Peary's  story  indicates 
that  his  dogs  did  it;  that  he,  Peary  crippled  with  a  fractured  leg 
which  he  writes!  had  given  him  much  trouble  on  the  first  part 
of  the  journey,  and  with  feet  from  which  all  toes  but  one  were 
gone,  did  it;  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  after  he  had  traveled 
(Apnl  5)  the  first  36  nautical  miles  of  this  journey,  he  completely 
coUapsed.    His  representation  of  fatigue  on  reaching  Camp 
Jessup  IS  clearly  intended  to  indicate  that  he  practically  dropped 
m  his  tracks,  and  that  although  the  location  of  the  Pole  was 
actually  m  sight,  he  could  not  take  the  last  few  steps.     He  did 
however,  by  vigorously  lashing  his  exhausted  muscles  manag^ 
to  multiply  those  few  steps  into  a  total  of  117.06  additional 
mues.  trudging  over  snow  and  ice,  before  he  stopped  to  camp 
The  record  shows  that  he  covered  this  first  86  nautical  miles  of 
northing  from  Camp  No.  26  in  12  hours.    If  true,  this  would  be 
the  greatest  achievement,  and  the  most  phenomenal  speed  ever 
recorded    m  polar  work.    Such   a  statement  of  speed  could 
hardly  be  read  v^ithout  incredulity.    However,  Peaiy  claims 
to  have  performed  it  on  April  5th,  6th,  going  north  from  Camp 
iNo.  26,  and  it  is  on  record  for  review. 

Here  is  what  he  claims  that  he  did  during  the  next  80 
hours  when  he  alleges  to  have  been  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Pole  •* 
After  the  vain  attempt  to  sleep  at  Camp  Jessup,  and  before 
6  p.^m.,  Apnl  6,  Peary  says  that  he  started  off  to  reconnoiter. 
r.mn  M°°**M  "di!"  ™ther  indefinite  as  to  the  hour  of  his  arrival  at 

fTable  1,  Group  5. 
tNorth  Pole.  Page  «87. 
•♦Table  1,  Group  9. 


Detail  Analyait  of  Speed 


51 


In  six  ho\u«  thereafter,  or  jiist  before  midnight,  he  alleges  that 
he  reached  his  farthest  point  in  the  eastern  hemisphere,  or  at 
the  end  of  the  10  mile  march  (at  D,  Diagram  9.)  After  taking 
some  observations  he  started  on  the  return  to  Camp  Jessup 
over  the  trackr  of  ,iie  forward  march.  It  was  just  past  mid- 
night April  6th,  7th  when  he  started  back.  He  now  commenced 
the  second  leg  of  the  30  hour's  march  which  was  to  continue 
iminterrupted  for  24  hours  longer,*  or  xmtil  the  next  midnight 
(April  7-8)  except  for  4  hours  between  noon  and  4  p.  m.  doing 
other  work,  making  one  continuous  march  of  SO  hours.  All  of 
this  took  place  without  sleep,  after  he  had  collapsed  and  could 
not  take  another  step.  In  six  hours  after  startmg  back  from  the 
farthest  point  (D),  he  arrived  at  Camp  Jessup  (6  a.  m.,  7th). 
Then,  after  taking  a  series  of  observations  he  made  another 
excursion  of  8  miles  out  and  back,  and  at  noon  again  arrived  at 
Camp  Jer^iip.  He  stopped  4  hours  and  describes  how  he  used 
this  mterval.f  "In  the  afternoon  of  the  7th,  after  flying  our 
flags  and  taking  our  photographs,we  went  into  our  igloos  and  tried 
to  sleep  a  little,  before  startmg  south  again.  /  could  not  sleep, 
and  my  two  Eskimos,  Seeglo  and  Eginwah,  who  occupied  the 
igloo  with  me,  seemed  equally  reetlees.  They  turned  from  side  to 
side,  and  when  ihey  were  quiet,  I  could  tell  from  their  uneven 
breathing  that  they  were  not  asleep.  Though  they  had  not 
l)een  specially  excited  the  day  before  when  I  told  them  that  we 
had  reached  the  goal,  yet  they  also  seemed  to  be  under  the  same 
exhilarating  influence  which  made  sleep  impossible  for  me. 
Finally  I  rose,  and  telling  my  men,  and  the  three  men  in  the 
other  igloos,  who  were  equally  waktful,  that  we  would  try  to 
make  our  last  camp,  some  thirty  miles  to  the  south,  before  we 
slept,  I  gave  orders  to  hitch  up  the  dogs  and  be  off.  It  seemed 
imwise  to  waste  such  perfect  traveling  weather  in  tossing  about 
on  the  sleeping  platforms  in  our  igloos."  At  4  p.  m.  he  started 
for  Camp  No.  26,  36  miles  south,  stopping  k>ng  enough  on  the 
way  to  make  a  sounding.    He  reached  Camp  No.  26  in  "good 

*Table  I,  Group  8. 

tPeary'i  t'fttrtk  Pel*.  Page  800. 


111 


62 


if 


If  -I 


n. 


jif 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


time"  April  7.    This  makes  a  total  distance  traveled  between 
sleeps  of  1 17.06  route  miles.  "«tween 

If  there  are  degrees  of  excellence  in  accomplishing  miracles, 
then  Peaiys  performances  in  making  rapid  speed  and  lonK 
marches  are  completely  eclipsed  by  this  marvelous  exhibit  of 
recuperation  from  excessive  fatigue.  When  speaking  of  Peaiy 
m  this  mstaace.  we  include  Henson  and  the  Eskimos,  who 
coUectiyely  formed  the  expedition.  What  one  endured  all 
endured  m  approximately  equal  degree.  Physicians  teU  u 
that  rest  is  the  only  antidote  for  the  poison  of  fatigue.    In  thii 

''rfi'.^'L     m''''"*'*'^'  ^^^  ^^'  ^"«  to  be  that  this  added  trip 
of  117  06  indes  was  rather  soothing,  for  Peaiy  writes  describing 
his  safe  arnval  at  Camp  No.  26.    "The  first  camp  at  89»  96' 
was  reached  m  good  time,  and  the  march  would  have  been  a 
TUaeant  one  forme  but  for  my  eyes  bunung  from  the  strain 
of  the  contmued  observations  of  the  previous  hours.    After  a 
few  hours  sleep  we  hurried  on  again.  Eskimos  and  dogs  on  the 
«tt»  f'.-*.      As  IS  characteristic  of  miracles,  the  laws  of  nature 
appear  m  this  mstance  to  have  been  temporarily  suspended  m 
order  to  work  out  a  desired  result.    Prom  midnight  of  the  6th 
to  midnight  of  the  7^  is  24  hours.    If  we  deduct  from  this  time 
the  4  hours  which  Peary  says  he  consumed  at  Camp  Jessup 
between  noon  and  4  p.  m..and  assume  also  that  he  did  not  k>se 
anoUier  second  of  time  in  the  remaining  20  hours  (in  eatmg. 
dnnkmg.  m  makmg  the  aUeged  sounding  with  1^  miles  of  wire 
or  m  any  other  activity)  but  that  he  actuaUy  did  travel  everJ 
second  for  the  full  20  hours,  the  result  would  seem  to  ^^ 

K  !!lJ*"*r/*'^'^"^^«<>^°'^-  H  each  man  in 
the  expedition  had  spanned  8  feet  at  each  step  and  had  taken 
one  step  every  second,  they  would  have  traveled  68  miles 
Could  eveiy  man  have  spamied  8  full  feet  at  every  step,  and 
have  utihzed  every  second?  If  they  could,  they  would  have 
traveled  only  68  mUes.  but  to  have  traveled  iSo  miles  they 
would  have  to  span  5^  feet  at  every  tick  of  the  ckxik. 

For  purposes  of  comparison  we  may  accept  as  true  Peary's 
represenution  of  his  condition  when  he  left  the  Bartlett  Omp, 


Detail  Analysia  of  Speed 


53 


aad  his  description  of  the  traveling  conditions  enroute  north. 
We  shall  suppose  that  in  consequence  of  his  superb  condition 
and  the  nearly  perfect  going  he  was  able  by  a  supreme  effort 
to  travel  on  the  average  over  three  times  faster  than  he  had 
traveled  between  Cape  Columbia  and  the  Bartlett  Camp,  and 
that  he  made  25  miles  of  latitude  the  first  day  and  20  miles  the 
second,  increasing  his  rate  every  day  imtil  he  attained  36  miles 
the  last  day,  and  reached  the  Pole.     Nevertheless  a  rule  does 
not  always  work  both  ways.    If  the  going  grew  better  and 
better  from  the  Bartlett  Camp  north  to  the  Pole,  obviously  it 
grew  worse  and  worse  on  the  return,  over  that  identical  space. 
Peary  is  now  supposed  to  retrace  his  steps  from  his  fari  nest 
point  over  the  tracks  of  the  outward  marches.     It  is  over  this 
identical  ice  he  is  traveling  on  his  return.     Probably  he  v.ould 
not,  with  such  favorable  conditions,  with  so  little  snow,  step 
into  the  footprints  made   'ough  by  the  outward  march,  but 
would  prefer  the  smooth,  clear,  hard,  surfaces  by  the  side  ol 
the  discernible  tracks,  thereby  havmg  equal,  but  no  better 
advantages,   than  on    the  outward    march.     The    conditions 
of  traveling  on  the  rettim  did  not  change.    They  remained  the 
same,  the  tracks  remained.     But  his  physical  condition  had 
changed  and  for  the  worse.    How  could  he  when  returning  in 
this  handicapped  condition  over  the  same  ice  of  the  second  day's 
outward  march,  when  in  superb  condition  he  had.  made  only  20 
miles  going  north,  make  45  miles  traveling  south?    It  seems  as 
if  this  alleged  fact  is  impossible  of  explanation.     And  what 
comment  is  to  be  made  on  the  journey  of  April  7,  when  he  says 
he  made  62  nautical  miles  in  the  last  three  fourths  of  one  march, 
nearly  double  his  speed  when  traveling  north  over  this  samespace, 
a  distance  of  36  nautical  miles  which  had  so  exliausted  him? 
What  comment  can  we  make  when  he  adds  to  this  achievement 
that  he  stopped  on  the  way  to  make  an  alleged  sounding  of 
1500  fathoms  of  wire— (l^i  miles  deep)  to  take  many  observa- 
tions, and  photographs  r     If  allowances  be  made  to  cover  drift 
and  the  ordinary  deviations  from  a  straight  line,  the  actual 
distance  alleged  to  have  been  traveled  on  April  7,  would 


le 


54 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


111' 


iM'i 


greater  than  any  ever  known  to  have  been  attamed  in  one  day 
on  any  road,  on  any  part  of  the  earth's  surface  in  the  history  of 
pedestrianism. 

Peary  left  no  superlatives  with  which  to  improve  the 

traveling  conditions  (these  were  exhausted  m  narrating  the 

progress  poing  north).    No  explanation  is  given  to  the  public  to 

account  for  this  performance,  unequalled  in  the  annals  of 

mankind.     Here  is  a  claim  that  dogs  in  a  presumably  fatigued 

condition,  from  continued  forced  marches,  harnessed  to  heavily 

loaded  sledges;  presmnably  tired  Eskimos  wrapped  in  arctic 

furs;  Peary,  himself  comparatively  a  cripple,  marched  over  a 

footing  of  slippery  ice  and  yieldmg  snow  at  a  speed  exceeding 

that  which  the  greatest  trained  pedestrian  known  m  history 

could  ma  "if   in  one  day's  march  only,  over  carefully  chosen 

courses,  in  selected  weather,  and  when  he  was  specially  prepared 

for  the  task. 

The  next  day,  April  8,  Peary  takes  up  another  march 
according  to  his  stoiy.  As  before  stated,  the  going  must  be 
growing  worse  as  he  proceeds  south,  to  be  m  accord  with  his 
report  going  north.  In  fact,  the  chart  indicates  that  he  only 
claims  to  have  traveled  on  this  day  53  nautical  miles  against  62 
the  day  before— a  little  less;  but  against  £8  miles  going  north 
on  the  same  ice,  in  forced  marches  in  prime  condition  at  top 
speed.  At  the  start  on  April  8,  he  must  have  again  come  upon 
the  alleged  smooth  frozen-over  lead,  running  "north  and  south" 
where  he  said  he  made  28  miles  in  one  day  going  north,  at  the 
end  of  which  he  said,  "We  were  all  pretty  well  played  out  and  in 
need  of  rest. "  This  alleged  speed  was  the  greatest  ever  claimed 
by  any  one  up  to  that  date,  and  it  seemed  from  Peaiy's  state- 
ment that,  under  the  circumstances,  it  was  the  limit  of  physical 
endurance  and  of  distance  possible  to  be  accomplished.  What 
his  dogs  coidd  have  done  returning  over  the  same  ice  on  April 
8,  that  exceeded  a  gallop,  and  how  it  was  possible  to  surpass 
what  was  done  going  north,  he  does  not  state,  but  claims* 
without  a  word  of  comment  that  they  "reeled  oflf"  58  nautical 

*Diagrain  S. 


Detail  AncdyM  of  Speed 


56 


miles,  or  as  great  a  distance  in  one  day  as  they  made  in  the  two 
best  days  of  the  journey  north.  On  the  next  march  April  9, 
the  chart  shows  him  to  have  made  45  nautical  miles,  which 
brought  him  back  to  the  Bartlett  Camp  at  87*  47'.* 

We  have  traced  Peary's  rates  of  q)eed  in  detail  north  of 
Bartlett  Camp.  He  had  according  to  his  story  been  absent 
from  Bartlett  Camp  7  days  and  IS  hours,  and  the  record  is  that 
he  traveled  in  that  time  304  nautical  miles,  a  daily  average  of 
40.S  nautical  miles  or  66.3  route  miles.f  He  writes  J  "The  story 
of  the  conquest  of  the  pole  is  what  it  is,  not  what  somebody 
thinks  it  ought  to  be,  or  might  have  been . "  A  tabulation  of  this 
round  trip  north  of  the  Bartlett  Camp  made  in  a  straight  line 
with  the  marches  evenly  divided,  puts  Peary's  claims  in  gnq)hic 
form: 


Taju  in 

(Not  to  acale.) 


North  Fble 


Marches 

1 

2 

8 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Date 

Snd 

8rd 

4th 

5th 

5-« 

6-7 

8 

9 

Nautical  Miles 

i6 

20 

25 

28 

86 

72 

58 

40 

Statute  Miles 

28.75 

28 

28.75 

82.20 

41.40 

82 

60.95 

51.75 

Route  Miles 

87.87 

29.9 

87.87 

41.88 

58.80 

107.64 

79.28 

67.21 

I  do  not  wish  indignation  or  opinion  to  take  the  place  of 
analysis  and  synthesis,  but  I  should  no  longer  tdnm  from 
comment.    Bellerophon  frequently  rode  Pegamu  a  thousand 

'This  story  is  the  same  as  if  Peary  had  said  that  he  fonnd  a  dowa 
hill  route  from  the  Bartlett  Camp  to  the  Pole.  Desiring  to  avail  himielf 
of  this  favorable  'ncline  downward,  he  rushed  men  and  dom  to  the  very 
limit  of  endurance,  and  when  he  reached  the  bottom  of  the  hSl  he  eoUapaed 
from  sheer  exhaustion. 

Nevertheless,  he  rose  aad  went  back  up  the  hili  and  traveled  twice 
as  fast  going  up  aa  he  did  coming  down. 
tTable  1,  Group  2. 
XHamfton't,  Aug.  1910,  Page  174. 


M 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacocered 


IPii 


;.,  j  = 


.;  f 


\..>i  V 


Mil  • 

i    .  I, '  ■ '  * 


miles  in  one  day,  but  Eskimo  dogs  cannot  be  compared  with 
Pegasus  because  the  latter  had  wings.  If  one  has  sufficient 
faith,  he  may  if  he  wishes,  believe  the  story  of  Pegasus.  But 
a  stoiy  which  alleges  that  Eskimo  dogs  attached  to  heavily 
laden  sledges  clambered  over  ice  floes  of  the  Polar  Sea  faster 
than  50  miles  a  day;  that  a  human  being  much  in  need  of  sleep 
voluntarily  postponed  it  for  SO  hours;  who  was  at  the  same 
moment  so  tired  from  travel  that  he  could  not  step  any  further, 
even  to  gain  the  prize  of  his  life's  ambition,  yet  alleges  that  he 
did  start  out  in  that  condition  and  traveled  over  72  miles  of 
latitude,  and  at  the  end  of  the  journey  says  that  it  was  a  very 
pleasant  trip,  except  a  little  smarting  of  his  eyes;  such  a  story 
is  presumably  mythical. 

A  casual  reader  of  Peary's  narrative  would  not  notice  these 
spaces  of  time  between  sleeps,  or  the  long  distances  covered  in 
the  marches,  so  adroitly  have  the  two  facts  been  obscured. 
The  method  seems  to  have  been  to  break  the  thread  of  the 
narrative  at  the  psychological  moment  by  diverting  the  attention 
of  the  reader.  The  truth,  however,  brought  out  by  the  charts 
and  tables,  is  incontrovertible.  These  hours,  and  these  speeds, 
are  utterly  impossible.  No  comparisons  by  any  criteria,  as 
will  be  shown  can  be  set  up  to  justify  them.  They  are  surely 
fictitious  hours,  and  fictitious  speeds.  This  being  accepted 
temporarily  as  a  known  fact,  it  will  not  be  a  difficult  task  to 
find  abundant  evidence  in  corroboration  of  this  fact.  No  one 
can  claim  such  absurd  impossibilities,  especially  when  they 
traverse  natural  laws,  and  escape  detection.  I  have  presented 
the  allied  facts  as  to  Peary's  speed  north  of  the  Bartlett  Camp, 
and  now  turn  to  Peary's  record  south  of  Bartlett  Camp,  to  give 
a  complete  outline  of  Peary's  claims. 

The  alleged  speed  during  the  second  part  of  Peary's  journey 
south  from  Bartlett  Camp  to  Cape  Columbia,  April  10,  to 
April  23,  is  not  so  astonishing  as  that  of  his  trip  north,  but  from 
another  point  of  view  his  statements  on  this  subject  are  even 
more  significant.  When  Peaiy  reached  the  Bartlett  Camp  on 
his  way  south,  he  suddenly  slackened  his  speed  from  an  average 


Detail  Analyais  of  Speed 


57 


of  58  nautical  miles  a  day,  to  20.7  miles,  or  down  to  less  than 
one  half  pace  for  the  remaining  portion  of  the  journey  to  land. 
He  was  getting  into  competitive  territoiy.  Bartlett  was  travel- 
ing over  the  remaining  route  just  ahead  of  him.  Marvin,  Borup, 
Goodsell  and  Mci:>Aillaii  had  preceded  Bartlett  over  ans 

of  the  route,  and  all  followed  the  beaten  track  to  lani  ><u7 
says*  that  Bartlett  returned  to  land  in  13  marches  as  b^^oinst 
S2  outward,  and  in  the  same  paragraph  he  further  says  that  he 
(Peary)  returned  from  the  Pole  in  16  marches  against  27  out- 
ward; indicating  that  this  comparison  in  "marches"  without 
defining  them  as  to  length  or  time,  is  a  su£5cient  justification 
of  his  own  claim  for  speed.  Before  attempting  a  review  of  this 
method  of  comparison,  it  is  necessaiy  to  get  Uie  truth  and  the 
alleged  facts  arranged  in  proper  order  for  ready  examination, 
and  to  exclude  that  which  is  misleading. 

Bartlett  left  Peary  at  Camp  22  (87»  47')  on  April  1,  at  8  p. 
m.  He  says  in  his  allied  logf  Uiat  he  arrived  at  Cape  Columbia 
on  April  18,  late  in  the  day.  (To  fix  some  definite  time,  we  will 
call  it  very  late,  11  p.  m.)  This  would  make  him  absent 
enroute  17  days  and  8  hours,  or  416  hours.  But  at  camp  18, 
after  getting  8  hoiu*s  sleep,  he  says  he  was  detained  by  open 
water  27  hours.  Therefore,  he  was  actually  389  hours  on  the 
way  (marching  and  sleeping).  If,  therefore,  Bartlett  made  his 
return  trip  in  13  marches,  as  Peaiy  says  Bartlett  did,  he 
averaged  29.9  hours  per  march  (sleeping  and  marching).  The 
distance  is  280  miles,  consequently  each  march  covered  21.5 
miles  or  .71  miles  for  each  hour  absent.  These  are  the  alleged 
facts  as  to  Bartlett  (the  proportion  of  time  allotted  for  sleep 
not  being  given). 

Now  as  to  Peaiy's  16  marches.  He  says  he  left  camp 
Jessup  April  7,  at  4  p.  m.  and  wrived  at  Cape  Columbia  on 
April  23,  at  6  a.  m.  This  would  make  him  absent  enroute  15 
days  and  14  hours,  or  374  hours.  If,  therefore,  he  made  this 
trip  in  16  marches  aa  he  said  he  did,  he  averaged  23.8  hours  per 

♦Test,  Page  68. 
fTestimony,  Page  50. 


ill 


*ir' 


n 


£8 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Seen  Diteovered 


?  Ml 


march  (sleeping  and  marching).  The  distance  is  418  miles, 
consequently  each  march  covered  25.8  miles,  or  l.OS  miles  fof 
each  hour  absent.  These  are  the  alleged  facts  as  to  Peary 
(the  proportion  of  time  allotted  for  sleep  not  being  given). 
It  is  immaterial  for  the  ^  esent  purpose  that  we  are  in  ignorance 
as  to  the  division  of  time  in  either  case  as  to  marching  or  sleeping. 
These  figures  may  be  tabulated  as  follows: 

Table  IV 
BARTLETT  from  87°  47'  to  Cape  Columbia. 

IS  marches     89.9  hours  per  march      389  hours. 

15  marches     81  .<  miles  per  march       880  miks. 

or         .71  miles  per  hour. 

PEARY  from  Camp  Jeasup  to  Cape  Columbia. 

16  marches    8S.Shoura  per  march      374  hours 
16  marches    85.8  milee  per  march      41S  miles 

or     1 . 1  miles  per  hour. 

The  Uble  shows  that  Bartlett  naade  .71  miles  of  southing 
for  every  hour  of  the  S89  hours  enroute,  and  that  Peary  made 
1.1  miles  of  southing  for  every  hour  of  the  874  hours  he  was 
enroute.  Peary,  therefore,  made  66  per  cent  better  progress 
than  Bartlett.  In  other  words,  Peary,  tiuvehng  at  the  rate 
of  1.1  miles  per  hour,  could  in  «8.8  hours  (sleepmg  and  marching) 
cover  25.8  miles  of  progress.  It  would  take  Bartlett  traveling 
only  .71  miles  per  hour,  86.3  hours  to  make  the  same  distance. 
Putting  these  facts  in  another  form  Peaiy  claims  to  have  been 
55  per  cent  more  efficient  in  1^  propulsion  over  practically  the 
same  road  than  was  Bartlett.  Peary  and  his  party  had  in  their 
blood  fatigue  toxins  of  304  miles  more  traveling  than  had 
Bartlett.  Peary  had  a  lai^  party  of  men  and  r^ogs,  the  slowest 
or  weakest  of  which  set  the  pace  for  the  who  party.  Yet 
nol.<  Ithstanding  these  handicaps  it  is  claimed  that  they  traveled 
over  the  same  ice  66  per  cent  faster  than  did  Bwtlett  with  his 
two  Eskimos  and  light  sledge. 

It  must  also  be  mmsidered,  that  the  pace  south  ol  the 


iiJ 


Detail  Analytii  <4  Speed 


n 


Bartlett  Camp  wad  less  than  one  half  that  which  Peary  had 
made  anywhere  after  Bartlett  turned  back  at  ST  47'.  If 
Peary  had  actually  let  himself  loose  when  south  of  Bartlett 
Camp,  ad  he  claims  he  did  on  his  way  to  the  Pole;  or  even  when 
coming  from  beyond  the  Pole  to  Bartlett  Camp*  at  a  clip  of 
58.0  nautical  miles  per  march,  instead  of  20.7  miles,  (which  if 
we  estimate  that  he  took  8  hours  for  sleep  and  marched  16, 
would  be  at  a  pace  of  3.6  nautical  miles  per  hour  actual  speed 
over  the  ice)  he  would,  when  about  half  way  to  land,  have 
passed  Bartlett  as  if  the  latter  were  at  anchor,  and  would  have 
reached  the  shore  ahead  of  him.  The  claim  is  so  imique  it  wiU 
bear  a  little  closer  examination. 

This  presume*!  race  with  Bartlett  is  excellent  for  purposes 
of  comparison,  because  the  conditions  south  of  the  B^tlett 
Camp  were  practically  the  same  with  both  contestants.  They 
were  traveling  over  the  same  ice,  at  almost  the  same  time,  one 
following  in  the  tracks  of  the  other,  ending  as  they  started  one 
day's  march  apart.  Only  the  naked  question  of  speed  and 
endurance  is  left  for  comparison.  Bartlett  was  a  young  and 
vigorous  man  of  38.  He  says  he  had  a  light  sledge,  10  dogs, 
and  a  small  party  of  two  Eskimos.  Th^  had  traveled  S04 
nautical  miles  less  than  Peary  and  his  men  had.  Because  of 
these  advantages,  Bartlett  was  physically  able  tx>  travel  cm 
several  occasions  FORTY  HOURS  in  ONE  MARCH.  Bartlett 
\s  undoubtedly  a  wonderful  man  physically.  Borup  says  of 
him  in  his  book.f  "His  tremendous  endiuunce  and  ability  to 
keep  going  forever  showed  up  on  the  Polar  Sea,  where  on 
seventeen  of  the  twenty-two  northern  marches  he  pioneered 
the  way,  and  on  his  way  to  land  SOMETIMES  MARCHED 
FORTY  HOURS  WITHOUT  SLEEP."  "Sometimes"  is 
not  a  definite  word,  but  it  undoubtedly  means  more  than  once, 
or  several  times.  (Bartlett's  report  to  Peary  in  the  alleged 
log  gives  informati<Mi  in  this  matter). |    Peaiy  was  comparative- 

•Group  7. 

t  A  Tenderfoot  teitk  Peary,  Page  816. 

ITestimony,  Page  «0. 


1: 


; 


(d 


■p.^. 


^■i 


60 


Fa*  iA«  Nnrth  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


ty  an  old  man,  (58)  and  a  cripple  much  annoyed  with  his  in- 
finnities.  He  had  a  large,  and  admittedly  a  very  tired  party 
of  men  and  dogs.  The  odds  in  every  conceivable  way  were 
af^st  him.  He  started  with  a  handicap  of  304  nautical 
miles,  more  than  the  entire  distance  before  them  from  land. 
He  had  more  than  twice  as  far  to  go  as  Bartlett  had. 

In  the  absence  of  any  valid  reasons,  or  satisfactory  ex- 
planations to  the  contrary,  who  would  naturally  be  vanquished 
in  this  race  to  land?  The  record  says  it  was  Bartlett  and 
beaten  ignominiously  over  two  to  one.  Peary's  record  is 
that  he  traveled  684  nautical  miles  while  Bartlett  was  making 
280.  Bartlett  started  south  April  1.  Peary  started  north 
from  the  same  spot  April  2.  Bartlett  reached  the  RooaeveU, 
April  24,  (no  hour  given).  Peary  reached  Cape  Columbia, 
April  2S,  6  a.  m.,  (the  day  before).  He  rested  there  2  days; 
then  in  2  marches  more  he  reached  the  Roosevelt.  Had  he 
kept  on  from  Cape  Columbia  without  resting  he  would  have 
reached  the  Roosevelt  at  6  a.  m.  on  the  23th,  arriving  one  day 
behind  Bartlett.  He  started  the  race  one  day  behind.  Bart- 
lett, therefore,  was  in  fact  by  fair  reasoning  just  as  long  to  a 
day,  in  marching  from  Bartlett  Camp  to  the  Roosevelt  over  a 
route  of  370  nautical  miles,  as  was  Peaiy  who  claims  to  have 
traveled  over  a  route  of  674  nautical  miles. 

If  the  30  hours  said  to  have  been  lost  by  Peaiy  in  the 
alleged  tarry  at  the  Pole,  should  be  added  to  his  marching  time, 
he  could  have  reached  Cape  Columbia  on  the  21st  at  midnight, 
and  arrived  at  the  Roosevelt  the  23rd  at  midnight— ONE  DAY 
AHEAD  OF  BARTLETT.  This  may  be  presented  in  the  moi« 
simple  form  of  hypothesis.  Suppose  it  to  be  true  that  on 
April  1,  1900,  Bartlett  and  Peary  were  in  fact,  at  the  Bartlett 
Camp,  at  87"  47';  that  each  proposed  to  go  from  there  to  Cape 
Columbia,  by  different  routes;  that  Bartlett  was  to  take  the 
shortest  possible  route,  direct  to  land,  which  was  280  miles 
distant  in  a  straight  line  measurement;  that  Peaiy  was  to  take 
a  route  which  would  be  more  than  twice  as  long  as  that  which 
Bartlett  was  to  take,  or  584  miles  in  a  straight  line  measurement. 


Vdaii   Analyaia   of  Speed 


61 


Suppose  furtlier  that  Peary  and  Bartlett  were  in  all  rw,/  ^t« 
e(|ually  equipped  for  these  journeys;  that  they  were  both  of  the 
same  age  and  strength;  that  both  had  the  same  number  of 
sledges  equally  loaded;  that  both  started  at  the  same  hour; 
that  the  only  handicap  wuj  the  extra  distance  of  804  miles  that 
Peary  would  have  to  travel. 

Who  must  you  lielieve  would  in  such  circumstances  gat  to 
Cajx;  Columbia  first?  Is  that  an  easy  question  to  answer? 
Could  anyone  hesitate  a  monient  to  express  his  belief?  Could 
there  possibly  be  but  one  answer,  namely,  that  each  would 
travel  exactly  as  fast  and  exactly  as  f'  r  as  the  other,  and  that 
Peary  having  twice  the  distance  to  go  would  be  twice  as  long 
in  getting  to  land? 

But  the  assumption  is  wrong.     They  were  not  equal  in  all 
respects.     It  may  be  fairly  said  that  they  were  unequal  in  all 
respects;  furthermore  that  all  the  inequalities  were  in  Bartlett's 
favor.     Bartlett  was  young  and   the  strongest  man   in  the 
expedition.     On  his  journey  to  land,  Bartlett  took  only  one 
sledire  wJiich  for  rapid  traveling  was  veiy  lightly  loaded.      He 
took  a  surplus  number  of  dogs,  knowing  it  was  a  race  for  life. 
He  strained  every  nerve  to  get  to  land  as  quickly  as  possible. 
He  had  the  strength  and  use<l  it.     Several  times  on  this  trip 
to  land,  he  marchi  1  40  hours  Ijefore  stopping  to  rest,  or  sleep. 
Peary,  his  competitor  in  this  race,  was  not  only  handicapped  by 
304  miles  greater  distance  (o  travel,  but  had  passed  the  meridian 
of  life;  one  leg  thi.t  had  been  broken  gave  him,  he  says,  much 
trouble  up  at  lea  t  to  the  Borup  Camp.    He   had   no   toes 
except  one  little  one.     He  had  5  sledges  to  manage,  and  each 
sledge  fully  loaded.     Six  men  composed  the  expedition  with 
supplies  to  last  as  lon^'  as  possible  (50  days  at  l-ast.)     Njw 
answer,  which  one  of  these  competitors,  so  unequally  equipped, 
with  all  the  additional  handicaps  against  Peary,  would  be  likely 
to  take  the  most  time  in  reaching  land?    There  is  only  one 
honest  reply:  Bartlett  could  probably  travel  at  least  twice  as 
fast  as  Peary  could.  f 

It  may  be  thought  then,  that  as  Bartlett  reached  Cape 


di 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  DUcoeered 


m 


Columbia  in  82  days,  Peary  who  had  over  twice  the  distance 
to  traverw,  and  w^*  vobably  traveling  half  as  fast,  must  have 
coiiiUmed  fully  o  J  •i.^ys.  The  record  is,  however,  that  Peary 
started  one  riay  behind  Bartlett,  and  was,  measured  by  the 
facts,  one  day  behind  him  when  he  reached  Cape  Columbia. 
Instead  «>^  traveli.  j?  half  as  fast  as  one  would  naturally  suppose, 
the  record  shows  that  he  traveled  over  twice  as  fast  as  did 
Bartlett. 

Any  section  of  this  race  journey  may  be  separately  reviewed 
where  data  exist  for  the  jiurpose  and  if  will  be  found  to  check 
out  and  bustain  the  theory  that  Peary's  claims  are  impossible. 
As  an  illustration  take  the  supposed  race  from  the  Bartlett 
Camp  22  to  Camp  16.*  Bartlett  made  this  distance  in  4 
marches  of  9-20-18-32  hoursf  respectively,  or  in  79  marching 
hours.  But  he  rested  as  follows:  14  hours  at  Camp  21,  about 
6  at  Camp  10,  and  86  at  Camp  18,  or  56  hours  altogether. 
Peary  claims  to  have  made  this  same  distance  9  days  later,  also 
in  4  marches  (from  April  10  to  April  18  inclusive.)  He,  however, 
gives  no  information  as  to  how  many  hours  each  march  con- 
sumed, but  ije  must  have  had  at  least  three  sleeps  in  the  four 
marches  viz.,  at  Camps  21,  at  19,  and  at  17.{  This  fact  .affords 
opportunity  for  comparison.  If  Peary  was,  therefore,  96  hours 
on  the  journey;  and  if  he  marched  as  many  hours  to  make  this 
distance  as  Bartlett  .actually  did,  viz.,  "^9  hours,  it  left  him  only 
17  hours  for  rest  in  comparison  to  56  for  Bartlett.  In  other 
words  the  feat  of  his  caravan  in  endurance  and  leg  efficiency 
and  rest,  in  comparison  with  that  of  Bartlett  is  as  17  to  56,  in 
favor  of  Peary.  He  traveled  as  fast  and  as  far  with  his  caravan, 
with  17  hours  rest  as  Bartlett  did  with  56,  and  Bartlett  being 
forced  to  rest  by  detention  36  hours,  traveled  3S  hours  on  the 
last  march  without  rest  or  sleep. 

Peary  does  not  publish  any  details,  but  there  is  no  escaping 
these  c(mclusions.  We  carmot  see  the  wind  blow,  but  we  can 
see  the  straws  bend  and  sway.    Prom  these  indications,  we 

'Diagram  S. 

tLog,  Page  «0,  Test. 

tNorth  PoU,  Chapt.  tS. 


Detail  Analyau  of  Speed 


68 


know  us  wpII  as  if  it  could  l)C  seen  from  whence  tht  vind  comes. 
Can  there  l>e  any  truth  in  this  record?  Is  thc^.'  an  honest, 
candid,  intelligent  person  in  the  ci\'ilized  world,  who  believes 
what  Peary  has  written  regarding  this  speed;  wL-  believes  he 
mode  the  si)eed  he  claims  to  have  made?  Will  any  such  person 
possibly  l>elieve  it,  when  the  truth  is  known  to  him? 

Peary  has  written*  (after  leaving  the  glacial  fringe  going 
north),  "'^hat  the  edges  of  the  ice  fields  farther  out,  where 
they  come  in  contact,  will  have  piled  up  into  a  series  of  pressure 
ridges,  one  ^)eyond  another,  which  anyone  traveling  northward 
from  land  must  go  over,  as  one  would  go  over  a  series  of  hills. " 
He  published  in  his  hook  many  photographs  of  what  purport  to 
be  those  hills.  Opposite  page  240  h  one  of  those  pictures 
entitled  "A  typical  example  of  the  difficulties  of  working  sledges 
over  a  pressure  ridge. "  Taking  these  admitted  conditions  into 
account,  and  remembering  Pear;''s  claims  for  si»eed  over  such 
conditions,  we  ask  the  |>erson  who  still  lielieves  Peary's  story, 
to  answer  this  final  question:  "What  speed  would  Peary  need 
to  rlaim  tiiut  he  dctu.»''>  did  m.^ke  over  such  surfaces  as  he 
describes  above  to      ■  fli/iheh'^ved?'" 

So  much  on  »■  •  'vsis  of  s^joed.  The  foregoing  pages 
havt.  required  man.  )•  '.'.r  . ,  ut  I  wished  to  be  thor-^'U^'h  at  the 
risk  of  bt'ing  tediou*  «.  i  i'  omit  nothing  that  app^aifxl  im- 
I)ortan^  For  this  saju  'i.*son  I  have  isolated  he  subject  of 
speed  from  all  others,  even  from  those  tLi '  an  ihtimately 
connected  with  it,  preferring  to  let  it  rest  at  present,  upon  the 
question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  speeds  '  laimed  are  in  them- 
selves possibl<v  In  the  fol%  v,  ing  ehapte-  im  atte->.pt  will  be 
made  to  confirm  the  cotr  .inions  now  reached  afi  to  the  im- 
possibility of  Peary's  speed,  by  showing  how  his  statements  are 
contradicted  by  Henson  and  by  the  records  of  other  explorers; 
how  Peary's  stories  conflict  with  •  ach  other,  and  even  with  the 
claims  voiced  by  the  friends  wlio  tried  to  defend  him,  and 
finally  by  revealing  the  manner  in  v  -.ich  he  has  skillfully  and 
deUberately  arranged  conditions  to  justify  these  impossible 

marches  and  rates  of  speed. 
*Soilh  Pole,  Psge  196. 


CHAPTER  III 
FINAL  PROOFS  ON  SPEED 

without  ri7'^Z'.s"^r  ^^"^^  •-  ^--Plete 
given  on  speed  by  PeW^on^^^T  ^  '^•^'"  *^«  «^d«ice 
The  negn,  llenL7l,l''^^^^^P^ion  at  the  Pole. 
returned,  is  an  intelligent  ^    Tf     ""^  "^^^  »"««« 
for  the  n,a.azines;  hafpubSed  fb<J^*T*^°  •nter«,ti„„y 
Eas   and  exhibited  his  p^Iar  pictu,^«     «     ^^  J^'"^-^  »  the 
employ  of  Pea^^  over'^wen'y  ySs     ZZ  ""^^T^  '«  «»« 
Nicaraugua.  ar.  J  his  experience  on  ^^  A    .^  ^^  ^''^^  ^'"»  « 
Pea.y.  for  he  ac^m^p:"  ^^^^"^^ 

understandsastronomicaiobservaSln?  .  I'  ''*^*«^'-  »« 
for  the  expedition  in  im!Z'  I  ''"''*  *^'  *^«  »'«lKes 
while  on  the  ice.  and  kepTa'dU^    ^'^  "  '"'"^  P^otogi^pt 

pea."r:  s.  rtS:;\tT:;  ^^^t-  -  -« - 

Ic^ew  what  his  o..-n  calcuktionTu  7'  ^^P^^'     ^^ry 

traveling    north    or  s^uth    Tn^        "^l^^^^her  they  we« 
Peao^  permitted  himTL.      Z  """^  ""'^  '"^^  -^»t 
during  that  a^tic  day.    Se  sun  w        ^T  "°  '**"  «»»^J^ 
tinually.  never  Wow  fhe  horL^^  T      T^^?  ''''''  ^'^^  ^^ 
;-  only  actually  known  whTthe  ^^^^^1'  "  ™*''*^''*' 
lowest,  or  the  hiehest  in  ,f»  ««  *•       ,  V*"*^®  "'  the  sun  was  the 
But  no  altitude  taVak^  Zitri"  «'"^  ^'"^^  ^''^  ^--n 
left  them.     The  ci  Jtous  tTeU  ""'  .^*^'  "^"^^  B-^tl^tt 

«uoh  ciH-umstances.  luTd  ^Ill'T.  "'"'  '""^  '**  '^'^*'  ""<!«' 
^-ithout  a  constant  st^dy  oT  the  ""^'""  '°'"  ""^^  «»-. 
variation,  to  know  the  genem!  diLr^'T  *"**  '"^  ^^^^P^S 

64 


FiruU  Proofs  on  Speed  ^ 

They  traveled  by  compass,  and  paradoxical  as  it  may 
seem,  the  needle  pointed  practically  south,  but  approximately 
to  the  north  magnetic  pole.    This  U  one  of  the  anomaUes  of  the 
situation  which  requires  very  minute  attention  and  calculaUons 
The  north  magnetic  pole  is  farther  south  from  Cape  Columbia 
than  the  geographic  pole  is  north.    In  traveling  by  a  compass 
one  must  n6.-c8sarily  understand  this  variation,  and  constanUy 
make  proper  allowances.    In  starting  from  Cape  Columbia, 
the  needle  points  nearly  south-south-west,  or  say  roughly  135 
degrees  deviation  gradually  pointing  nearer  to  the  jouth,  as 
one  advances  north,  until  one  reaches  the  North  Pole  (or  west 
to  the  meridian  of  the  magnetic  pole,  when  in  either  case  it 
would.  If  true,  point  directly  south)      Under  these  peculiar 
circuinstances.  it  is  easy  to  imagine  how  one  could  be  deceived 
l.y  glancmg  at  the  compass.     If  not  fully  informed  as  to  the 
variation  on  that  day.  one  might  think  he  was  traveling  north 
when  m  fact  he  was  going  south.    If  he  were  on  the  meridian 
of  the  magnetic  pole  (about  96'  west)  he  might  think  he  was 
actually  at  the  North  Pole,  as  the  compass  would  point  south  in 
either  case     Not  a  word  of  this  is  mentioned  in  Peary's  book. 
It  IS  referred  to  here  as  one  of  the  many  reasons  why  no  one  but 
Peary  would  be  hkely  to  know  in  which  direction  they  were 
progressing.    It  would  require  the  closest  calculation  even  for 
hm,  to  know.    In  practic-Uly  aU  else,  save  location  and  direction. 
Henson  knew  facts  and  events  as  weU  as  Peaiy  knew  tiiem;  and 
what  he  recorded  in  his  diaiy  as  to  Uiose  facts  or  events  is  as 
reliable  as  what  Peary  recoiled;  actually  more  reliable,  because 
Of  his  comparative  disinterestedness. 

Henson  would  not  be  considered  a  disinterested  witness, 
however,  in  a  contest  between  Cook  and  Peaiy .  The  honor  of 
«t3«dmg  at  the  Nortii  Pole  as  a  discoverer  ^  Peaiy  would  ^ 
sometiimg  that  Henson  would  be  loath  to  part  witii.  Under 
such  cucumstances  Uie  Eskimos  would  be  better  witne««.. 
But  as  between  Henson  m:d  Peaiy  as  to  f«jts  known  to  both. 
Henson  s  testimony  is  decidedly  the  better,  because  Pewy^hai 
a  motive  timt  might  influence  his  eatrie.  in  his  diary.  ^  hi. 


66 


R(u  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Si  f-'^ 

lip 


pubUsh«i  narmUve.    When  P«uy  «.ys  he  went  f«>m  B.rtleU'. 

Henson  in  an  article  published  m   the  Boeton  Sundav 
Am^can,  July  17.  1910.  wrote  that  upon  the  Wal  oTS 
e^iUon  at  fhe  al  eged  Camp  Jessup.  Peaiy  t^i  a^L^,: 
hmi  and  arranged  with  the  Eskimos  to  leave  Hpn^r.- 
«.d  without  Henson-s  knowledge  to  ^JZ'^^Z^:^:^ 
bs  sight  and  there  establish  the  location  of  the  N^rth  plk 
The  pl«.  was  thwarted  because  one  of  the  Eskimor^tiv 
informed  Henson  of  the  scheme.    However   P^^!  ^^ 
towa^  Henson  continued.     By  the  time  ti'ey'^Xdlf^ 
ship.  Peary  would  scarcely  speak  to  him  civiuT^d  th^n 
Uiey  reached  New  York  he  dismissed  him     iter^  Tqio 
Peaiy  and  BarUett  went  to  Europe  on  a  lech^  to^   3* 
Henson  sought  employment  in  .siting  and  lecturing^  ^e 
polar  tnp^    Whatever  Henson  wrote  or  said  at  thTui^  ^sl 
untensored  by  Pearv     Hp  reli'<wi  «*  •.  ^ 

and  his  memo  J^*  ^"^  °'  "^^'^^  "P«"  ^  diaiy 

During  this  period  Henson  published  an  article  in  th^ 

^aned  dash  to  the  Pole"  ,.  e.,  trom  the  timethat  Bartlett 
turned  back  until  the  expedition  left  Camp  Jessun  oTiL 
return  south.   (April   1   to  7  inclusive).     He  cov^  Z^f 

weather.  leads  etc.  He  gave  a  very  inteUigent  descrintion 
of  all  matters  of  inten-st.  much  superior  m  cleam«l  iTc^d" 
to  anyUimg  yet  wntten  by  Peary.  This  sto.^-  is  char«.torisUc 
of  a^l  of  Henscm's  writings  and  lectures  up  to  that  daT^fothe 
Boeton  Amencan  he  also  gave  ve^^  full  details  of  Ihly'! 

diaiy.    When  Henson's  two  articles  are  checked  with  P^ 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


narrative,  on  the  same  topics  on  corresponding  dates,  one 
wonders  how  such  a  difference  could  exist  in  two  stories  of  the 
same  trip. 

For  instance,  Henson  says  they  traveled  18  hours  the  first 
day,  April  i*  Peary  says  10  hours.  Such  conflictuig  state- 
ments create  doubt  and  call  for  investigation.  For  that  purpose 
and  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  the  following  extracts  from  the 
stones  of  both  Henson  and  Peary  relating  to  i^ed  are  phiced 
in  parallel  columns,  the  statements  on  each  date,  being  directly 
opposite  each  other.  As  these  extracts  are  intitxluc  J  simply 
for  elucidation,  the  six  days  only  are  included,  that  immediately 
follow  Bartlett's  departure;  m..  April  2.  3.  4.  5.  6  and  part  of  the 
7th.  Henson  s  statements  are  taken  from  the  WorUT*  Work 
April.  1910.  Peary's  from  his  book  "The  North  Pole/' and  from 
Hampton  »  Magazine,  August  and  September.  1910. 

Tablb  V 


A  Twica  Tou)  Tale. 


HKNSON 


A  lead  is  a  lake  or  a  river  of  open 
water  atwaift  extending  etut  and  teett. 
(Peary  corroborates  this  in  his  narrra- 
tive;-Ed01____ 


L':ads 


PEABT 


Apr,  t  Marched  18  houw. 


MARCHES 


Apr.  4  Peary  says,  we  came  upon 
an  open  lead  running  north 
and  toutk  etc.  (Stmufat  for 
the  Pole.— Ed.)  P.  iM. 


Apr,  g   Marched  10  hours.  P.  t7«. 


Apr.  e  "I "^BST&d  waiEdnSTow 
that  we  had  made  exceptional 
distances  in  those  five  days. 
So  did  the  Eskimos  for  they 
also  had  walked.  Lieutenant 
Peary  was  the  only  surprised 
jggg!_He.  because  of  his  crip- 


FATIGUE 


Apr.  6  "  YiHnth  the  PblTactualiy 
in  sight,  I  was  too  weary  to 
take  the  last  few  steps.  The 
■Kcumulated  weariness  of  all 
those  days  and  ni^U  of  forced 
marches  and  insufficient  sleep, 

g^»tant   peril   and   anxiety 


•Table  5. 
.S.mth^"Th\ili  Il.*'""r  ''*'*'">'  ^t^  *»  ^^  """l  West,  ftao-  North  and 


68 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Tabu!  v.— (Cont.) 


HBNaON 


pled  feet,  had  ridden  on  the 
uedge*  the  greater  part  of  the 
journey  up,  as  he  did  upon  the 
•'*'''"••  Riding  one  cannot  so 
well  judge  of  distance  tni- 
veraed. " 


PCABT 


seemed  to  roll  across  me  all 
at  once.  I  was  a  '  ,ally  too 
exhaueted  to  realise  at  the 
moment  that  my  life's  pur- 
pose had  been  achieved."  P 
«87. 


Apr.  6 


n       i  , 


M 


**f 


^h 


"Henson's  Photographs  on 
tges  12820  and  128S0  in 
^  World's  Work,  April  1910,  il- 
.ustrating  the  marchmg  expedi- 
tion, both  show  Peary  alone 
ndmg  on  his  fur-lined  ridmir 
sled.  " 


GOING 


Apr.  %  (This  date  is  referred  to  by 
Henson  only  on  the  4th  and 
«th  as  being  "the  same"  t.  e. 
"■ame  struule,"  etc.)  Read 
Apr.  4.    T.  F.  H. 


Apr.  1  A  fine  marching  morning. 
The  best  we  had  Lad  since 
leaving  Und.    P.  S75. 


Aprs  Ice  was  so  rough  and  jagged 
that  we  had  to  uee  our  piekaxe* 
eonttantlp  to  cut  a  trail. 


Apr.  3-4 

Weather  and  going  even 
better  than  the  day  b^ore. 

The  surface  of  the  ice  ex- 
cept as  intercepted  by  infre- 
quent pressure  ridges,  was  aa 
level  aa  the  glacial  fringe 
from  Heckla  to  Columbia  and 
harder.  Traveled  ten  hours 
■traight  ahead.  Dogs  on  trot 
and  occasionally  on  the  run 
made  U  miles.    P.  tso. 


Apr.  4-4 

The  monotony  of  the  trail 
iras  unbroken  by  any  incident 
of  importance. 

There  was  the  same  laborious 
struggle  over  pressure  ridges. 
The  same  detour  to  the  etut  and 
veei  to  avoid  crossing  a  lead, 
or  the  same  skillful  manipula- 
tion of  the  sledgi-s  in  going 
directly  across  the  running 
water.  '"ITie  same  '  meanbg 
same  as  2nd  and  Srd. 


Apr.  4 


Evening.  Going  eawu  (a« 
on  the  preeioua  mareh)  but  the 
sledges  always  haul  easier 
when  it  is  not  quite  so  cold, 
and  the  dogs  were  on  the  trot 
much  of  the  time  .... 
Toward  the  end  of  the  march, 
we  came  upon  a  lead  running 
north  and  mmth*  and  as  the 
young  ice  was  thick  enough 
to  support  the  teams,  we 
traveled  on  it  for  two  hours. 
The  dogs  galloping  along  and 


Firud  Proofs  on  Speed 


ammoN 


FBABT 


reeljiu  off  the  miles  Uiat  de- 
lighted my  heart.    P.  tH». 


Apr.  5      The  going  wu  even  better 
than  before  etc.    P.  884. 


The  first  thing  to  attract  attention  on  the  Peaiy  side  of  the 
column  IS  the  i^otny.  Notwithstanding  Bartlett's  great  distress 
from  breaking  trails  through  abnost  continuous  pressure  ridges, 
Mid  constant  delays  by  water  leads,  on  the  very  first  day  after 
BarUett  turns  back,  when  Peary  must  break  his  own  traU  and 
build  his  own  igloos,  everything  changes.    Peary  says: 

"A^,  i'  ^®.  ^^"^^  '*  *^«  ^«s*  since  leaving  land. 
I„.»i    li^    *  ^^^y^  a  ^'ttle  at  first,  but  soon  struck  the 
le/el  old  floes,  made  twenty  miles. 

hp,u'l^^'  ^'  Jf".*  a«>'ore  i.  e.   'Going  better  than  before 
besides  sledges  haul  easier,  because  it  is  warmer.' 

Ajyrd  6,  even  better  than  before. " 
It  was  no  longer  necessary  to  increase  the  exceDence  of  the  gomg 
because  the  next  morning  the  6th  at  10  a.  m.,  he  reached  the 
role  after  finding  perfectly  smooth  ice  aU  the  way.  On  April 
5,  for  the  first  time  on  the  journey  a  newly  frozen-over  lead 
was  found  running  "north  and  south"  instead  of  "east  and 
west,  and  making  a  road  straight  to  the  Pole  over  which  his 
dogs  gaUoped  for  two  hours  at  a  stretch,  covering  28  nules. 
Ihese  conditions  continued  pracUcaUy  uninterrupted  until  he 
reached  the  polar  camp  and  returned  to  land.  In  fact  he  only 
chums  to  have  been  delayed  two  hours  in  the  whole  journey  of 
*A  ciciySe 

Now  re-read  Henson's  column: 

*  April  2  and  3.  Ice  so  rough  and  iaseed  that  nioknTM 
were  used  constantly  to  break  a  taiil.  Pickaxes 

"April  4  and  5.  Same  laborious  struggle  over  oressure 
a&.  eT'ete'^"  "^  *^*  ^'^  "^^  ^"^"^  avoid  cS^ 
Not  a  word  from  Henson  about  ice  being  "as  smooth  as  between 
HecUa  and  Columbia,  and  harder."    Not  a  word  about  that 


70 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


■tf 


N     3!? 


if"' 


lead  "frozen  perfectly  smooth  running  north  and  south"  over 
which  the  dogs  galloped  at  the  28  mile  a  day  clip,  that  so  "de- 
lighted" Peary's  "heart."  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  the 
two  descriptions  relate  to  the  same  four  days  of  the  identical 
trip;  or  that  they  are  published  as  history,  and  one  of  them 
vouched  for  by  a  Geographic  Society  composed  of  distinguished 
scientists. 

With  reference  to  leads,  Peary's  descriptions  in  the  early 
part  of  his  book  fully  corroborate  Henson  that  the  leads    "all 
run  east  and  west."    Peary  then  says,  "Sometimes  they  are 
rivers  of  open  water,  from  half  a  mile  to  two  miles  in  width, 
stretching  east  and  west."*  In  that  part  of  his  narrative  where 
he  attempts  to  show  that  Cook  could  not  possibly  have  reached 
the  Pole,  Peary  also  agrees  with  Henson  regarding  ice  conditions. 
He  siiys:  "There  is  no  smooth,  and  very  little  level  ice  between 
Cape  Columbia  and  the  North  Pole-the  surface  of  the  Polar 
Sea  during  the  winter  may  be  ono  of  almost  unimaginable 
un"\ -niK  ss  and  roughness  .  .  .  anyone  traveling  northward 
from  the  land  must  go  over  as  one  would  go  over  a  series  of 
hills.       This    des<riptioii    is    practically     identical    with     all 
Peary's  former  accounts,  and  mth  his  daily  description  up  to 
the  tmie  Bartlett  turned  back.     It  is  substantiaUy  the  descrip- 
tion given  })y  all  ix)lar  travelers,  including  Henson  and  Borup. 
The  only  instance  where  Peary  varies  his  language  is  in  his 
narrative  after  Bartlett  turned  back,  and  in  this  he  is  con- 
tradicted by  Henson.  one  of  the  party  and  his  only  witness. 
The  references  in  the  t^^o  narratives  for  these  five  days,  as  to 
temperature,  weather,  wind,  observations  and  rations,  are  just 
as  contradictory  as  those  presented  in  the  paraUel  colunms, 
but  It  IS  needless  to  cite  them  here.f 

There  are  other  significant  features  in  this  disclosure. 
Hensoi.  evidently  was  unsophisticated  as  to  certain  matters 
outside  of  his  actual  observations.  If  Peaiy  said  "We  are 
traveling  north, "  Henson  accepted  it.     If  Pcaiy  said :  "  We  are 

*  North  Pole,  Pages,  197-«07-«««. 
fChapttT  Vr. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed  71 

at  the  Pole. "  Henson  l>eHeved  him :  it  is  natural  that  he  should. 
Peary  claims  to  have  started  April  2,  f„r  the  Pole.  188  miles 
distant,  over   an    uncharted,    unknox.-n,    desolate   space.    Of 
necessity  he  must  make  a  circuitous  route,  vaiying  the  direction, 
ecmstantly  seekii.K  the  easiest  lines  of  travel,  avoiding  ob- 
structions   of  every   nature,   ascending   and   descending   the 
uneven  surfaces  as  shown  in  the  photographs.    He  says  thev 
traveled  m  this  manner  five  days  averaging  over  81.8  nauticiU 
miles  a  day  as  shown  in  Group  7,  not  considering  detours,  or 
36.6  statute  miles  per  day  on  the  average  in  a  straight  line  of 
progress    (countmg  detours  and  deviations  makes  possibly  40 
stotute  miles  per  day).    They  take  no  observations,  guessing 
at  U,e  progress  made.    At  the  end  of  the  five  marches,  they 
guess  they  are  at  the  Pole.    A  halt  is  caUed.  igloos  buUt.  at  the 
first  opportunity  an  observation  is  taken,  and  they  find  the 
geographical  axis  of  the  earth  to  be  exactly  where  they  guessed 
It  was.    just  behind  the  igloos."    But  upon  verification  during 
30  hours  of  observations,  during  which  time  the  ice  had  drifted 
to  the  ead    they  removed  the  flag  pole  150  yards  from  its  first 
tocation  to  have  it  m  the  exact  spot.     This  is  Henson's  version. 
Did  he  mvent  all  this,  or  were  these  actual  performances? 

Henson  and  Peaiy  when  these  articles  were  written  were, 
as  explained  above,  not  in  concord.    Therefore,  Henson  presents 
his  version  as  he  understands  it,  as  he  saw  it,  as  he  knew  it. 
He  has  not  taken  the  precaution,  pmbably  because  he  thought 
It  unnecessary,  to  submit  his  data  to  censors  before  publication 
to  get  a  consensus  of  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  it  coincided 
wiUi  the  statements  made  by  Peary.     Had  he  submitted  it 
o  the  Peary  Arctic  Club,  or  the  National  Geographic  Society 
bi^fore  promulgation,  it  might  perhaps  have  been  revised  to 
appear  more  m  harmony  with  Peary's  version.     It  is  presented 
here  as  it  ,s  published.    After  Peaiy  obtained  his  honors  from 
the  government,    however,   he   ag«in    became   friendly   with 
Henson.  and  early  in  1912.  about  three  years  after  he  left  the 
Arctic    Henson  s   book   was  issued   by  the  same  publishing 
house  that  prmted  Peaiy 's  "  North  Pole. "     I  place  liiUe  or  no 


n 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Vmi 


iM. 


credence  in  Henson's  book  because  manifestly  it  is  censored  in 
an  endeavor  to  have  it  aj?ree  with  Peary's  story  as  to  matters 
of  facts  north  of  the  Bartlett  Camp.  Nevertheless,  in  matters 
south  of  the  Bartlett  Camp  there  are  some  inadvertent  omissions 
m  this  censorship.  One  of  these  omissions  bears  directly  on  the 
question  of  speed. 

Under  date  of  March  4,  fourth  day  out  from  Und  going 
north  Henson  writes :♦  "By  seven  o'clock  (a.  m.)  we  were 
following  the  Captain's  trail.    Very  rough  going,  and  progress 
slow  up  to  about  nine  o'clock,  when  conditions  changed.     We 
reached  heavy,  old  floes  of  waving   blue  ice,    THE    BEST 
TRAVEUNG  ON  SEA  ICE  I  EVER  HAD  ENCOUNTERED 
IN  EIGHTEEN  YEARS  OF  EXPERIENCE.    We  went  so 
fast,  that  we  more  than  made  up  for  lost  time,  and  at  two  o'clock, 
myself  m  the  lead,  we  reached  the  igloo  built  by  Capt.  Bartlett.  *' 
This  speed  so  impressed  him  that  he  refers  to  it  once  more  the 
next  day:    "March  5:    A  clear  bright  morning  20"  below 
«ero;  quite  comfortable.    REACHED  HERE  YESTERDAY 
AT  TWO  FORTY-FIVE  P.  M.,  AFTER  SOME  OF  THE 
FINEST  GOING  I  HAVE  ^VER  SEEN."    Here  is  i  sUte- 
ment  from  one  member  of  the  expedition  who  has  had  equal 
experience  on  the  Arctic  Sea  with  Peary  him.<K!lf.     His  testi- 
mony is:  that  on  the  4th  of  March  they  had  "thr  l)est  traveling 
on  sea  ice  I  ever  encountered  in  eighteen  years  experience." 
For  two  hours  that  day  (from  7  to  9  a.  m  )  he  s?ys  they  made 
slow  progress,  but  thereafter  (from  9  a.  m.  to  2:45  p.  m.)  they 
were  continually  on  this  imperial  highway.     Diagram  No    8 
shows  they  made  ELEVEN  MILES  that  day.    If  we  assume 
that  they  made  NO  progress  whatever,  from  7  to  9  a.  m.  when 
he  says  they  made  "slow  progress,"  but  made  the  full  11  miles 
after  9  a.  m.  it  would  be  a  rate  of  speed  1.8  miles  per  hour. 
Ten  hours  traveUng  at  that  speed  would  mean  18  miles  for  a 
day's  march  on  the  best  ice  conditions  ever  seen  on  the  Polar  Sea 
by  Henson  in  18  years  (including  of  course  all  the  ice  between 
land  and  the  Pole,  because  thi.s  was  yrntlen  years  afterward). 
He  never  describes  such  ice  again. 

*A  Negro  at  th«  North  Pole.  Page  S4-86. 


Final  Proof  a  <m  Speed 


73 


Henson  advances  another  thought  on  speed:*    "March 
15,  the  dogs  with  tails  up  and  heads  out.  stamped  off  mile  after 
mile  in  rapid  succession,  and  when  we  canii»ed  I  conservatively 
made  the  estimate  FIFTI-EX  MILES.    It  ha.  U>  be  good  umng 
to  make  such  a  distajice  with  loaded  sletlges.  but  we  made  it 
and  I  was  satisfied."    Fifteen  u.iles  in  one  day.  according  to 
Henson,  ref|uires  "go<Kl  going!"     This  corresponds  very  well 
with  "the  finest  going  I  have  mer  encountered."  18  miles  in 
one  day.     If  the  truth  is  told.  18  nautical  miles  in  a  straight 
line  measurement  is  afmut  the  maximum  of  human  achievement, 
and  with  loiided  dog  teams  over  polar  ice  a  claim  of  much  more 
than  this  is  undoubtedly  invention.     Would  an  unsophisticated 
man  like  Henson  publish  these  statements,  years  after  the 
journey  was  over,  in  onler  to  show  that  15  to  IS  miles  was 
possible  over  ice  floes,  and  state  that  it  was  ilie  greatest  speed 
he  had  ever  known  in  18  years  experience  on  fhe  Polar  Sea,  if 
it  were  true,  as  Peary  claims,  that  20  miles  was  the  very  sUme$t 
sjjeed  the  party  made  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp?    And 
that  this  speed  of  20  miles  was  increased  daiK-  thereafter  untU 
It  reached  82,8  statute  miles  in  one  march? 

Peary  insists  that  Cook's  claim  of  the  di.scovery  of  the  North 
Pole  should  not  be  seriously  considered,  and  makes  the  charge 
that  his  two  Eskimo  companions  say  that  he  did  not  go  far  from 
land.     If  these  Eskimos  said  this  and  knew  what  they  were 
saying,  everyone  will  agree  with  Peaiy  that  Cook's  claims 
should  be  discredited.    Waiving  the    fact    that    this  charge 
agamst   Cook   is   indefinite,   ambiguous,   hearsay,    ex   parte, 
presented  by  an  adversary,  that  it  is  with  equal  authenticity 
denied,  and  that  its  force  depends  whoUy  upon  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  the  averment,  anyone  will  admit  that  if  the  alleged 
statement  of  the  Eskimos  be  true,  it  unquestionably  defeats 
the  cUim  of  Cook.      This  situation  is  now  reversed.    The 
guns   heavily   loaded   are   pointed    toward   Peary.     Henson 's 
relation  to  Peary  is  entirely  different  in  a  controversy  over 
facts,  from  the  reUtion  of  the  two  Eskimos  to  Cook.    These 

*A  Ntgro  jt  tJu  North  Pole.  Page  99. 


74 


Hag  the  Sttrth  Pole  Hern    ' h'acovered 


objections    do    not    appl^     to    llnison's    writings.     Henson's 
e\i<ience  i.^  not  -ivpn  fn»m  hearsay,  it  is  not  pre-f^nted  by  an 
ndversarj-;    it   is  n«)»  denitil.       On    tlie   contrary,   it   is   pre- 
sentwl  voluntarily,  luiH  if  is    n  writinfj.     Not  a  word  of  it  has 
been  qiiestionwl  l)y  any  nicml»er  of  the  exjiedition.     It  is  taken 
fn»ni  a  diary  un<l  I'.nry  himself  has  vouched  for  the  witness. 
The  frank  manner  in  which  l!  i>  testimony  is  given  with  no 
thought  of  discrciliting  Pcnry.  the  «H«asion  for  its  offering  being 
only  to  enlighten  the  public  «»n  facts  known  to  Henaon,  and 
further  that  it  was  offered  dnring  Peary's  absence  in  Europe, 
makes  its  sincerity  luiqucstioned.  its  truthfulness  undisputed, 
and  consequently  it  makes  the  disposition  of  Peaiy's  claims 
for  speed  more  complete.     If,  for  selfish  reasons,  Henson  had 
desired  to  discreflit  Peary,  iis  Peary  desired  to  discredit  Cook 
and  had  unequivocally  declared  to  the  public  that  Peary's  allega- 
tions as  to  speed  and  marches  were  false;  such  a  posili  >>  declara- 
tion would  have  been  ineffective  compared  with  the  irresistible 
force  of  the  conclusion  drawn  from  this  innocent  exposure. 
Peary  had  no  white  witness  to  question  his  clahns  after  leaving 
Bartlett,  but  to  have  had  i)erfectly  smooth  sailing  for  his  story 
he  should  have  discarded  also  his  black  witness. 

Without  further  comment  at  present  on  the  evidence 
furnished  by  Henson,  let  us  iiresiuiie  for  purposes  of  discussion, 
that  Peary  did  travel  somewhere  beyond  the  Bartlett  Camp 
eight  marches,  at  the  end  of  which  he  was  back  at  the  same 
point.  But  in  these  eight  marches,  did  he  go  to  the  Ndrth 
Pole  and  lieyond.  and  was  it  possible  for  him  to  do  so,  when 
such  a  feat  is  compared  mIiIi  anything  heretofore  recorded  in 
polar  work?  As  a  basis  for  answering  these  questions.  let  us 
examine  the  re<H)rds  of  several  polar  exi)lorer8,  note  their  records 
of  speed;  and  then  draw  our  conclusions. 

( yrus  C.  Adams.  Editor  of   the    American   Geographic 

SiKJety, writes:*  that  "four  miles  per  day  is  considered  a  fair 

average  over  polar  ice,  although  Cagni  mad;^  7  miles. "     George 

Kennan    in   the   Outlook  October  2,    <lt()9   in    a  critidam  of 

*finiew  oj  Review*.  Oct.  19,  1908,  Page  4H. 


Final  Proqf§  on  Speed  75 

^Hm'i?K'^*Ti?'''*^'"'P^=  "I  believe  the  highest 
n^t^"  "^  ••Jed^'ng  party  i„  a  nngle  seaean,  wa.  about 
u  degree.  (P.aiy  indicates  that  he  sledged  neariy   10 

McCIintock  already  famous  as  the  irreatMt  of  A,^n^ 
(146  days  1661  miles:   104  days.  1401  miles:    a  daily  avenwe 

"Sledging  condiUons  were  favorable  to  an  extent  unsurpass- 
ed mpoUr  work  so  that  he  usually  made  from  15  to  17  milar^r 
day.  Speakmg  of  Lockwood  he  says:t  "The  average  daily 
travel  to  this  pomt  was  9  miles,  the  greatest  ever  madeby  man 
power  in  a  very  high  latitude  on  any  extended  journey.  It  was 
withm  i^A  at  the  average  attained  600  miles  to  the  south  over 
ordmary  ice.  by  the  great  Arctic  sledgeman.  McCUntock." 

riA  ^^^^"?  .  j!*"*""  ''•''*  **"  "»«  P^^'  •<*  over  a  year 
(15  months),  including  the  crossing  of  Franz  Joseph  Land. 
They  were  m  all  Utitudes  between  80*  and  86»  15'  and  of  course 
out  maU  months  of  the  year.  They  encountered  eveiy  possibb 
oonchUon  of  ice  and  weather.  During  their  enUre  joum^  of 
450  days,  they  never  exceeded  20  miles  of  daUy  travel  except 
«?uT..*^r  "^^^  ^^  conditions  were  so  favorable  that  they 
thmk  they  went  25  mUes.  Their  average  was  less  than  2 
miles  per  day  of  actual  latitude  made. 

T^e  greatest  daily  distances  achieved   by  Shackleton 
were  made  on  his  return  from  near  the  South  Pole,  and  occurred 

20.18-22-26-29  sUtute  miles  or  17.S9.  15.65.  19.12.  22.6,  25.21 
nautical  miles.  He  measured  the  distance  with  an  instrument 
on  his  dedge  which  gave  the  actual  surface  distance  and  in- 
cludedjeto^   deviations  and  reUys.    If  proper  deductions 


iPfcfeitao. 


MIOtOCOPY   RESOIUTION   TEST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^ 

13.2 


1^ 


I.  ^ 


2.5 

IIIIIM 


ii£  MM 


1.8 


A     APPLIED  IN/MGE     Inc 

S^        1653  East   Main  Street 

Rochester.   New   Yort(        1 4609       USA 
(716)    *82  -  0300  -  Phone 
(716)   288  -  5989  -  Fo» 


76 


Uaa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


'  f-  '^ 


m 


were  made  for  detours,  etc.,  the  total  would  be  a  little  less  than 
these  figures,  but  it  is  unnecessary  for  the  present  purpose  to 
make  this  estimate.    Regarding  these  five  days  Shackleton 

writes:* 

"January  13.    We  have  a  sail  up  continually. 

"January  16.    Strong  following  blizzard;  18 J^  miles. 

"January  17.  We  did  our  best  march,  for  it  was  mamly 
down  hill  and  we  covered  22  ^  miles,  dropped  over  500  feet. 
Sail  hoisted.    This  sail  is  our  great  help. 

"January  18.    Our  best  day  26 J^  miles  down  hxU  with 

strong  following  wind.  ,  ,      -  u        j         u  ,.i. 

"  January  19.  Another  record  day  for  we  have  done  about 
29  miles  to  the  north  rushing  under  sail. " 

He  was  descending  a  mountain  slope  averaging  a  fall  of  900 
feet  per  day;  a  followmg  bUzzard  was  driving  him  on;  sails 
were  spread;  he  was  on  land.  Yet  29  statute  miles  (25.2 
nautical  miles)  was  his  greatest  effort,  and  for  one  day  only, 
just  equaling  Nr-'sen's  best  day,  of  25  miles.  Shackleton  records 
from  3  to  5  miles  while  making  altitude.  When  he  finally 
reached  the  plateau,  near  the  end  of  his  journey  south,  with 
comparatively  smooth  surface  and  with  the  weight  on  his 
sledge  reduced  to  70  lbs.,  but  with  his  party  fatigued  by  long 
travel  he  says:  "We  could  only  make  from  12  to  14  statute 
miles  a  day."  These  two  instances,  (Nansen  and  Shackleton) 
would  indicate  about  the  limit  of  human  endurance,  Nansen 
under  exceptionally  favorable  ice  and  weather  conditions  over 
polar  ice  floes,  and  Shackleton  under  equaUy  exceptional 
conditions,  but  on  land. 

There  were  only  two  days  in  all  of  Dr.  Cook's  travels  that 
he  claims  to  have  made  as  high  as  26  miles  per  day  and  these 
were  pedometer  miles,  measured  over  the  actual  surface  of  the 
ice  and  of  course  included  detours.  On  the  day  he  started  from 
land,  March  18,  he  says  he  made  26  miles,  and  on  March  21,  he 
made  29  statute  miles  (25.2  nautical  miles)  traveling  U  hours. 
Every  condition  being  favorable  he  embraced  the  opportunity 
and  "made  a  forced-march  of  14  hours,"  after  which  he  was  ao 
^    *Htari  <if  the  Antaretie.     Vol  t,  P»3es  S44-M7. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed  77 

fatigued  tiiat  he  "feU  asleep  while  the  snow  house  was  bemg 
built.  Cook  s  record  alleges  that  he  traveled  a  whole  season, 
oyer  every  possible  condition,  from  the  Pole  to  the  79th  paraUel 
with  the  current  in  his  favor,  at  an  average  of  less  than  14  roiles 
per  day. 

Scott,  in  planning  his  expedition  to  the  South  Pole,  con- 
sidered that  13  geographical  (or  nautical  miles)  per  day  was  the 
proper  distance  possible  to  advance.  He  usually  feU  short  of 
this  allowance,  and  only  exceeded  it  a  few  times  by  a  small 
margm.  On  one  day  only  (December  20)  whife  on  the  com- 
paratively smooth  ice  of  the  glacier  he  made  193^  geographical 
m  les  mcludmg  deviations.    Amundsen  used  skis,  light  sledges. 

??sirj  f *  "^  "^^"^^  ^"  ^^  *  ^^^' «"  ^'  ^^^  of  o^; 

10,000  feet  to  assist  him.  In  consequence  of  aU  these  conditions 
he  made  an  average  of  15^  miles  going  south  up  hiU,  and  iiVo 
miles  returmng.  ,        "^^ 

It  is  ob^aous  from  inquiry  into  the  records  that  nothing 
exists  m  Uie  history  of  polar  exploration  to  lend  credibility  to 
Peaiys  chums  for  miraculous  conditions  and  speeds.  The 
wntmgs  and  pictures  of  Parry,  Nansen,  Cagni.  Cook  and 
Peaiy  himself  (m  1906)  are  all  in  agreement,  and  indicate 
immist^ably  the  character  of  the  conditions  for  traveling  over 
the  ice  floes  of  the  North  Polar  Sea.  They  esteblish  a  reliable 
criterion  by  which  to  gauge  the  truth  or  falsity  of  any  repr^n- 
tations  which  appear  unreasonable.  The  table  on  the 
fol  owmgpage  lUustrates  the  historical  facts  of  travel  on  the 
polar  pack; 

The  views  of  another  investigator  of  this  subject  may  be 
of  assistance^  A  very  intelligenUy  written  book.*  referring  to 
^aiy  sspeed  onty.  sums  up  m  romid  figures,  in  excellent  form 
(after  reducmg  the  marehes  and  distances  to  statute  mUes  plus 
10%  for  detours  and  80%  for  drift),  the  insults  of  Pewy's 
return  tnp  as  follows:  ' 

-ViT^clZ^V^!^''^  ^'^1^^^'.'^'^  ^^  BooaeveU  reached. 
•'TbesSfi^'T^;*""^?    EIGHTEEN    MARCHES." 
Ihe  straight  hne  distance  from  the  Pole  to  Cape  Columbia  is 
Dtd  Peary  R,ach  the  PoU?    H.  LewiiiJP.g4g«. 


78 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 
TABLE  VI 


Name  of 
Explorers. 

Date 

Best  Single 
day's  inarch 

Ave. 

Remarks 

Latitude 
Reached 

Parry 

1827 

6 

5.0 

5  miles  at  first  dropped  to 
less  than  2. 

82'  42' 

Nansen 

1895 

25 

5.2 

176  days  on  the  ice. 

86°  05' 

Cagni 

1901 

8.0 

8  miles  at  first.    7  miles 
later. 

se"  M' 

Peary 

1906 

80 

7.2 

Estimated  SO  miles  for  best 
•lay. 

87°  05' 

Cook 

1907 

29 

North  Pole 

Peary 

1909 

20 

0.0 

Cape  Columbia  to  Bartlett 
Camp  on  only  2  days  did 
he  make  20  miles  a  day 
from    Cape    Columbia    to 
Bartlett  Camp. 

87'  47' 

Peary 

1909 

62 

27.7 

From  Bartlett  Camp  via. 
Pole  to  Cape  Columbia. 

North  Pole 

475  miles.  If  we  add  to  that  the  100  miles  from  Cape  Columbia 
to  Cape  Sheridan  where  the  Roosevelt  laid  we  obtain  the  stu- 
pendous average  of  THIRTY  SEVEN  AND  A  HALF 
MILES  PER  MARCH  FOR  EIGHTEEN  CONSECUTIVE 
MARCHES. "  "  But  the  crowning  climax  ol  fast  traveling  was 
not  attained  imtil  the  two  final  marches  which  were  of  FIFTY 
ONE  AND  THREE  QUARTER  MILES  EACH  FOR  two 
consecutive  marches. "  "One  hundred  and  three  miles  for  two 
marches,  over  rough  ice,  in  practically  two  days,  at  the  age  of 
fifty  three,  as  a  final  joy-burst  after  1000  miles  of  hardship  and 
danger!" 

Having  in  this  manner  describe  ^  the  return  trip  the  writer 
proceeds  to  illustrate  in  round  figures  the  entire  journey  with 
comparisons  with  other  explorers.  He  writes*  that  Peary 
actually  must  have  traveled  1500  miles  in  45  days  or  an  average 
of  SSK  miles  per  day.  "  His  average  from  Pole  to  S.  S.  Roosevelt, 
^%  miles  per  day.  His  average  for  the  final  two  marches, 
78^  miles  per  day.?'  The  author  then  makes  the  following 
comparisons: 

*Did  Peary  reach  the  Pole,  Page  47. 


Fined  Proofs  on  Speed 


79 


Greele^j^O«pt;JLockwowJ) 

Parry 

Duke  Abruzzi 


^0  days  averages  under  Ig     miles. 


61 


10 


104 


Nanaen  (88  years  old)        120 


"8^ 


Johansen  (iS  years  old) 
Napes 


'W 


7« 


~iK 


Pooling  the  above  for  purposes  of  discovering  the  standard 
average  for  travel  over  the  ice  gives  an  average  of  exactly 
EIGHT  MILES  PER  DAY.  Mr.  Lewin  then  writes:* 
"Which  is  the  most  likely  to  be  correct,  the  standard  of  five 
well  known  explorers,  showing  EIGHT  MILES  PER  DAY, 
or  the  record  of  Commander  Peary  showing  THIRTY-THREE 
AND  ONE  TOIRD  MILES  PER  DAY?"  He  verifies  his 
figures  by  omitting  in  all  cases  the  allowances  for  detours, 
drift,  etc.,  and  considers  the  straight  line  only,  and  by  this 
method  makes  Peary's  average  93H  miles.  The  five  others, 
5  miles,  or  Peary  f  stiU  more  than  four  times  as  great  as  the  standard 
average.  Concludmg  he  says:  "There  remains  but  little  to  be 
added.  A  speed  of  33J  miles  per  day  is  frankly  impossible 
over  the  polar  ice. "  "A  speed  of  one  half  that  is  equally  im- 
possible and  without  precedent. " 

It  is  interesting  at  this  point  to  mention  records  of  speed 
other  than  those  of  polar  explorers.  Harrington  Emerson  in 
The  Twehe  Principles  of  Efficiency  reaches  the  conclusion 
that  in  walking,  "The  able-bodied,  in  so  far  as  not  hindered, 
have  an  average  rate  of  4  miles;  and  from  these  observations  of 
voluntary  eflFort,  we  can  well  establish  a  walking  standard  of 
4  miles  an  hour  with  disapprobation  if  the  rate  falls  below  3 
miles,  with  special  reward  to  those  who  reach  and  pass  the  4 
mile  mark."  Edward  Payson  Weston,  a  trained  athlete,  the 
greatest  known  pedestrian,  traveling  over  smooth  graded  roads, 
raihx)ad  grades  and  paved  city  streets,  failed  to  make  the 
distance  from  Boston  to  San  Francisco  (about  4000  miles)  in 
100  days,  an  average  of  40  statute  miles  per  day,  yet  he  availed 
himself  of  weather  conditions,  rested  in  stormy  weather,  and 
traveled  on  selected  roads. 

•Ibid  Page  74. 

^Did  Ptary  reath  the  Pole,  Page  76. 


«l.^ 


ill 


W 


80 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Peary's  claims  as  I  read  them  are  that  he,  in  a  somewhat 
crippled  condition,  with  Henson  and  four  imtrained  Eskimos, 
bmidled  in  arctic  clothing,  driving  the  same  dogs  all  the  way, 
trudging  with  loaded  sleds,  over  "mountains"  of  snow  and  ice, 
walked  an  actual  di  ^ance  of  over  900  route  miles  in  21  days* 
averaging  over  45.5  route  miles  per  day;  and  on  3  of  those  daysf 
(reaching  and  leaving  the  Pole)  made  an  average  of  95.68 
route  miles  per  day,  and  one  day  made  101.92  route  miles-t 
Could  he  physically  do  this?  Could  his  Eskunos  do  this? 
Could  his  dogs  possibly  do  this?  Could  Weston  himself  have 
done  it,  with .  uch  underfooting,  and  under  such  other  conditions 
as  existed,  compared  with  his  best  effort  actually  reported? 
Could  he  have  done  it  between  Boston  and  San  Francisco, 
traveling  every  day  regardless  of  the  weather,  if  there  had  been 
slippery,  glassy  ice,  covered  with  yielding  snow,  on  the  roads 
every  foo  of  the  way? 

I  have  now  shown  that  no  criteria  can  be  set  up  from  arctic 
sledging,  either  over  land  or  sea  to  justify  a  beUef  that  Peary's 
story  of  his  trip  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  is  true.  Every 
branch  of  polar  sledge  work,  every  suitable  phase  of  pedestrian- 
bm  has  been  considered;  Peary's  only  civilized  companion  has 
been  called  as  witness,  and  the  testimony  is  unanimous  that 
these  claims  for  speed  are  preposterous  and  impossible.  It 
would  be  vain  to  attempt  to  break  the  force  of  this  array  of 
undisputable  evidence  which  estabhshes  beyond  controversy 
that  Peary's  alleged  speed  from  the  Bartlett  camp  to  the  North 
Pole  and  return  is  without  foundation.  This  analysis,  however, 
must  endure  any  test  that  may  be  applied  to  it.  The  points 
under  discussion  will  be  returned  to  the  crucible  for  an  acid 
test  to  see  if  the  conclusions  reached  are  orroborated  by  further 
evidence.  It  is  only  fair  to  examine  Peary's  own  statements  as 
the  final  test  of  the  truth  of  his  claims  for  speed. 

In  Hampton's  June,  1910,  Peary  attempts  to  show,  ihat 

♦Group  6. 
tGroup  7. 
IGroup  8. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


81 


under  the  conditions  which  he  actually  found  on  the  Polar  Sea, 
it  would  be  absurd  for  Dr.  Cook  to  chum  that  without  support- 
ing parties,  relying  wholly  upon  what  his  sledges  could  carry, 
he  went  to  the  Pole  and  "returned  alive. "  To  emphasize  this 
point,  the  article  on  the  subject  is  prefaced  with  the  following 
Editorial  note.* 

n  I'l?  ^!*7  T'^^  ^®*  ^  ^^  P**^«'  ^^y  ^a«  't  impossible  for 
Cook  J*  Asked  hundreds  of  times  by  our  correspondents,  that 
question  is  answered  m  this  and  succeeding  instalments. 

"Commander  Peary's  detailed  story  of  the  dash  is  the 
answer.  It  is  convincing  proof  of  the  absolute  necessity  for 
the  complete,  carefully  prepared  material  and  persons  he 
employed.  He  shows  you  the  daily  and  hourly  uses  made  of 
his  organization;  shows  how  impossible  the  accomplishment 
would  have  been  without  these. 

"Read  this  article,  and  you  will  know  why  one  white  manf 
and  two  Eskimos  with  their  necessarily  limited  equip"'-nt, 
could  never  reach  the  pole  and  get  back. " 

Ajain  at  the  end  of  the  article  is  another  editorial 
as  follows  4 

„  ,"In  the  July  issue.  Commander  Peary  will  tell  how  they 
finaUy  crossed  the  'Big  Lead'  after  five  days'  perilous  delay; 
of  their  progress  northward  over  the  moving  ;  :e  fields  of  the 
Polar  Sea;  and  of  his  final  parting  from  Ross  Marvin,  who  was 
destined  to  lose  his  life  on  the  way  back  to  the  land  in  com- 
mand of  the  third  supporting  party.  This  narrative  shows 
how  impossible  it  would  be  for  any  one,  without  Peary's  system 
of  relay  parties  and  a  large  number  of  assistants,  ever  to  reach 
the  pole  and  return. " 

To  impress  upon  the  reader  still  further  the  real  purport  of  the 
article,  Peary  in  the  body  of  this  same  article  also  writes  printing 
all  the  words  in  italics**  "Without  this  sytem  it  would  be  a 
physical  impossibility  for  any  man  to  reach  the  North  Pole  and 
return  to  teU  the  tale."*** 

*Hampton's,  June  1910,  Page  778. 
fMeaning  Cook. 

tJune  Hampton.Page  778.  Par.  2. 
•*June  Hampton,  Page  781,  Par.  I. 
♦♦♦AUuding  to  Cook. 


n 


82 


Haa  ihe  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


;i  :  << 


Here  are  extracts  from  the  article  itself:* 

"  There  w  no  smooth  and  very  little  level  ice  between  Cape 
Columbia  and  the  North  Pole. 

"The  surface  of  the  Polar  Sea  during  the  winterf  may  be 
one  of  almost  unimaginable  unevenness  and  roughness.  Nine 
tenths  of  the  surface  of  the  Polar  Sea  is  made  up  of  these  floes. 
The  other  one  tenth,  the  ice  between  the  floes,  is  formed  by  the 
direct  freezing  of  the  sea  water  each  autumn. " 

"And  the  edges  of  '  ice  fields  farther  out,  where  they 
come  in  contact,  pile  v  u)  a  series  of  pressure  ridges,  one 
beyond  the  other,  whif  ^lyone  traveling  northward  from  the 
land  must  go  over  as  one  voould  go  over  a  series  of  hills. 

"But  the  pressure  ridges  above  described  are  not  the  worst 
feature  of  the  Arctic  ice.  Far  m.ore  troublesome  and  danger  ^us  are 
the  'leads'  (the  whalers'  term  for  lanes  of  open  water),  which 
are  caused  by  the  movement  of  the  ice  nder  the  pressure  of 
the  wind  and  the  tides. "  •        .  i. 

"JSometimes  these  leads  are  mere  cracks  running  through 
old  floes  in  nearly  a  straight  line.  Sometimes  Uiey  are  zigzag 
lanes  of  water  just  wide  enough  to  make  crossing  impossible. 
Sometimes  they  are  rivers  of  open  water  from  half  a  mile  to  two 
miles  in  width,  stretching  East  and  West  farther  than  the  eye 

CSUl  SC€a 

"  **But,  briefly  stated,the  worst  of  them  are :  The  ragged  Mid 
mountainous  ice  over  which  we  must  travel  with  our  heavily 
loaded  sledges." 

"***The  reason  of  our  success  was  a  carefuUy  planned  syi 
fern  mathematically  demonstrated. " 

****"  In  order  that  the  reader  may  understand  this  journey 
over  the  ice  of  the  Polar  Sea,  it  is  necessary  that  the  theory 
and  practice  of  pioneer  and  supporting  parties  should  be  fully 
understood." 

"The  use  of  relay  parties  in  Arctic  work  is  new,  but  the 
idea  was  carried  further  in  the  last  expedition  of  the  Peary 
Arctic  Club  than  ever  before. " 

"First,  because  a  single  division,  comprising  either  a  small 
or  a  large  number  of  men  and  dogs,  cotdd  not  possibly  drag  all 

♦June  Hampton.  Page  774.     Par.  ft. 

tJune  Hampton,  Page  776.     Par,  1,  2,  8,  4. 

tJune  Hampton,  Page  777,  Par.  6. 

•*June  Hampton,  Page  778,  Par.  ft. 

••♦June  Hampton,  Page  780,  Par.  1. 

♦♦•♦June  Hampton,  Page  781,  Par.  1  and  9  inc. 


Final  Proof i  on  Speed 


88 


the  way  to  the  Pole  and  back  (some  nine  hundred  miles)  as 
much  food  and  liquid  fuel  as  the  men  and  dogs  of  that  division 
would  consume  during  the  many  weeks  of  the  joum«y. " 

(Remember  the  last  paragraph  ubove.) 

"Second,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the  arduous  work 
of  trail-breaking  for  the  first  two  thirds  of  the  distance  should 
be  done  by  one  division  after  another,  in  succession,  in  order 
to  save  the  strength  of  the  main  party  for  its  final  dash  alone. " 

"Fifth,  at  the  very  end,  when  the  supporting  parties  have 
performed  their  important  work  of  trail-breaking  and  trans- 
portation of  supplies,  the  main  party  for  the  final  dash  mutt  be 
small  and  caratdly  selected  as  a  small  party  can  travel  so  mudi 
faster  tfian  a  large  one." 

"The  pioneer  party  was  one  unit  division,  made  up  of 
four  of  the  most  active  and  experienced  men  of  tiie  expedition, 
with  sledges  lightly  loaded  with  five  or  six  days*  provisions, 
drawn  by  the  best  dog  teams  that  could  be  selected  from  the 
entire  pack.  When  we  started  from  Cape  Columbia  this 
pioneer  party,  headed  by  Bartlett,  wait  out  twenty-four  hours 
in  advance  of  the  main  party.  Later  on  when  we  reached  the 
time  of  continuous  dayhght  and  sunlight  through  the  twenty- 
four  hours,  the  pioneer  party  was  but  twelve  hours  in  advance 
of  the  main  party. " 

•"The  duty  of  this  pioneer  party  was  to  make  a  march  in 
every  twenty-four  hours  in  spite  of  every  obstacle — excepting 
of  course,  some  impassable  lead.  Whether  there  was  a  deep 
snow,  or  violoit  wmds  to  be  faced,  or  mountainous  pressure 
ridges  to  be  climbed  over,  the  march  of  the  pioneer  party  must 
be  made;  for  past  experience  had  proven  that  whatever  distance 
was  covered  by  the  advance  party  with  its  light  sledges  could 
be  covered  in  less  time  by  the  main  party  even  with  heavily 
loaded  sledges,  because  the  main  party,  having  the  trail  to 
follow,  was  not  obliged  to  waste  time  in  reconnoitering. " 

"In  other  words,  the  pioneer  party  was  the  pacemaker  of  the 
expedition,  and  whatever  distance  it  made  was  the  measure  of 
accomplishment  for  the  main  party.  The  leader  of  the  pioneer 
party,  in  the  first  instance  Bartlett,  would  start  out  ahead  of 
his  division,  usually  on  snowshoes;  then  the  hght  sledges  of  the 
party  would  follow  after.  Thus  the  leader  of  the  pioneer 
division  was  pioneering  ahead  of  his  own  party,  and  that  whole 
division  was  pioneering  ahead  of  the  main  party. " 

"One  great  advantage  which  I  had  on  this  expediti<m  was 
•June  (1810)  ffomjiAm— Page  788.    Par.  1,  S  and  8. 


84 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecooered 


4    =5 


f  F     f 


that,  owing  to  the  size  of  my  party,  whenever  the  men  in'this 
pioneer  division  became  exhausted  wi'  h  their  arduous  labor  and 
lack  of  sleep,  1  could  withdraw  them  into  the  main  party,  and 
send  out  a  fresh  division  to  take  their  place.  A  large  party  it 
absolutely  neceaeary  to  aucceaa.  "* 

This  portion  of  his  narrative  appears  to  be  rather  clumsily 
designed.  Peary  obviously  desires  to  show  that  Cook  with  his 
equipment,  never  could  have  gone  to  the  Pole,  and  that  he 
(Peary)  owing  largely  to  his  "system "  did  go.  His  statements 
are  profusely  italicized  to  emphasize  these  two  features. 
Pcaiy's  logic,  which  is  based  wholly  upon  premises  furnished 
by  himself,  appears  to  be  good;  and  if  his  premises  are  truthfully 
represented,  the  conclusions  drawn  therefrom  would  seem  to  be 
sound.  But  nothing  is  established  by  Peary's  representations 
until  we  ascertain  tl'  ■  truth  of  his  data. 

Peaiy  left  the  Bartlett  Camp  on  the  morning  of  April  8 
(accordmg  to  his  stoiy),  and  on  the  morning  of  April  28 — 
twenty-one  days  and  one  hourf  thereafter,  he  reached  Cape 
Columbia.  He  says,  that  during  this  interval  he  went  north 
7  miles  beyond  the  Pole,  traveled  16  miles  in  cross  directions 
(8  miles  out  and  back),  and  returned  to  land,  a  total  distance 
of  584  miles,  t  This  time  of  «1  days  and  1  hour  is  divided  as 
follows:  4  days,  19  hours  going  north  from  Bartlett  Camp,t 
2  days  and  18  hours  returning  to  Bartlett  Camp,**  and  IS  days 
and  12  hours  from  Bartlett  Camp  to  Cape  Columbia.*** 

Suppose  for  purposes  of  illustration  and  comparison  (as 
shown  m  Diagram  4)  that  on  his  arrival  at  Cape  Columbia,  IS 
days  (round  figures)  from  the  Bartlett  Camp,  he  had  retraced 
his  steps,  and  followed  the  beaten  trail  back  to  the  Bartlett 
Camp,  consuming  IS  days  more  (the  same  as  he  consumed 
coming  south).  He  would  then  have  covered  every  foot  for  a 
complete  round  trip  from  Bartlett  Camp  to  7  miles  beyond  the 


*Some  of  the  italics  ia  the  foiegoing  extracts  are  mine. 
tGroup  6. 
IGronp  10. 
••Group  7. 
♦**Group  8. 


T.  F.  H. 


Final  Proof$  on  Speed 


85 


Pole  with  a  reconnoiter  of  16  miles,  thence  to  land,  and  back  to 
the  starting  point  in  34  days,  passing  over  every  foot  of  ice 
twice.  He  says  he  had  60  days'  supplies  on  his  sletl^  %  and  in 
his  dogs  when  he  started  from  the  Burtlett  Camp.  Therefore, 
he  would  now  have  26  days'  supplies  left.  From  Cape  Colum- 
bia, he  says  he  marched  on  to  his  ship  Roosevelt  at  Cape 
Sheridan  90  miles,  in  two  days.  Continuing  at  this  speed  he 
could  have  traveled  back  and  fori':,  equalling  the  distance  be- 
tween Cape  Columbia  and  Cape  Sheridan,  13  times,  before  his 
supplies  would  have  l)een  exhausted. 

To  put  it  in  simpler  form,  he  could  have  started  in  the  first 
place  from  Cape  Columbia  taking  the  same  equipment  that  he 
says  he  started  with  from  the  Bartlett  Camp  "60  days'  supplies 
on  his  sleds,  and  in  his  dogs. "  He  could  havr  discarded  all  his 
supporting  parties.  He  might  have  made  13  trips  of  two  days 
each  between  Sheridan  and  Coliunbia  for  exercise  and  training; 
thereby  consuming  «6  days,  before  startbg  north  on  the  Polar 
Sea.  He  could  then  have  made  his  dash  for  the  Pole,  including 
a  round  trip  to  a  point  7  miles  beyond  the  Pole;  traveled  10 
miles  reconnoitering  while  there;  and  have  returned  to  Cape 
Columbia  in  34  days,  or  60  days  altogether,  before  he  exhausted 
his  rerources.  He  would  not  have  traveled  a  single  foot,  any 
faster  than  he  has  said  he  actually  did  travel  over  that  identical 
space.  In  view  of  this  comparison,  what  becomes  of  the 
inestimable  value  of  supporting  parties  which  are  emphasized 
so  strongly;  of  the  "great  system"  without  which  "no  one  can 
go  to  the  Pole  and  return  alive?"  Does  he  not  disprove  in  the 
September  magazine  what  he  said  in  the  Jime  munber?  This 
is  not  a  f&nciful  sketch,  but  an  accurate  compilation  of  Peary's 
own  statements. 

It  may  be  said  in  reply  to  this,  that  I  am  wrongly  assuming 
in  th>  hypothetical  illustration,  that  this  imaginary  trip  with 
this  supposed  equipment  woiild  find  a  trail  ready  broken  as  far 
north  as  the  Bartlett  Camp,  (which  of  course  would  not  be  true) 
and  that  consequently  mv  illustration  is  not  a  fair  one.  I  am 
not  making  any  such  assumption.     I  am  illustrating  and  com- 


86 


Has  the  North  PoU  Been  Dieeovered 


Ai  >i  i 


i'i 


paring  results  as  Peary  has  said  they  actually  occxiired;  as  he 
has  deat'.ihed  them  in  his  book  after  the  alleged  journey  was 
over.  It  is  true  that  I  am  ignoring  what  Peary  said  about 
obstacles  in  the  Jime  Hamjiion't,  just  as  Peary  himself  must 
ignore  them  to  justify  his  later  claims  for  speed.  They  must 
be  ignored  to  get  at  the  truth.  The  bugbears  about  "breaking 
trails,"  "mountains  of  ice,"  "series  of  hills,"  "open  leads," 
etc.,  it  must  be  presumed,  were  erected  in  June  Hampton's  and 
also  in  the  early  pages  of  Peary's  book,  to  show  the  impossibility 
of  Cook's  claims.  This  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  preface  and 
su£5x,  ill  the  article  itself.  In  Peary's  book  describing  his 
"dash,"  these  difficulties  are  evidently  not  supposed  to  have 
existed,  for  they  are  not  mentioned  or  taken  into  account.  I 
am  presuming  that  Peary  took  with  him  north  from  the  Bartlett 
Camp  the  identical  equipment  that  he  says  he  did  take,  over  the 
same  ice  that  he  describes  under  the  exact  conditions  he  said 
he  foimd.    I  am  following  his  narrative.* 

"  Many  laymen  have  wondered  why  we  were  able  to  travel 
faster  after  sending  back  each  of  the  supporting  parties  especial- 
ly after  the  last  one.  To  a  man  experienced  in  the  handling  of 
troops,  this  will  need  no  explanation.  The  larger  the  party 
and  the  greater  the  nimiber  of  sledges,  the  greater  is  the  chance 
of  brealuiges  or  delay  for  one  reason  and  another.  A  large 
party  cannot  be  forced  as  rapidly  as  a  small  party 

"So  that,  with  my  party  reduced  to  five  picked  men,  every 
man,  dog,  and  sledge,  under  my  individual  eye,  myself  in  the 
lead,  and  all  recognizing  that  the  moment  had  now  come  to  let 
ourselves  out  for  all  there  was  in  us,  we  naturally  bettered  our 
previous  speed. " 

It  is  self-evident,  even  to  those  inexperienced  in  the  handling 
of  troops,  but  it  surely  favors  Cook's  contention.  It  gets 
Peary  off  his  reservation.  In  Hampton's^  another  sentence 
followed  which  is  omitted  in  the  book.  It  reads:  "The  story 
of  the  conquest  of  the  pole  is  what  it  is,  not  what  somebody 
thinks  it  ought  to  be,  or  might  have  been, "  which  is  un- 
questionably true. 

•North  PoU.  Chapt.  XXXI,  Page  SM-286. 
t  August,  1910. 


rrw 


«.<»' 


rn/lViAirr 


-d    •!.-    imr,...||j     Ul 


'  'li.s  <i«rs«rij 


I 

iUi  i!i)'  <•;  folv 

;  >-  hi-  Umi  l»ft  til  ■  l(.-a  ij 
jxHHJ      Siicli||J    ifi||i 


OUCHAMMATIG 

f'r»l  a  mil    t.'ii    .i:|- 

"^if  .'mrt    to   justify 

•  'kfii   trail' 

■  .'ii^   Hptfial 

«•<).  !in«l  "tiulii  havH 

i-i  t  tl  ^1   had  iiiadi'  tu 

Hid  lt^.VlIl^  tj)<  n 

orer  iifitn**'  ,»v 

f    (li.Ht    SjHr  ff.- 

Ty  tu  .icfH  w.'it  for 

!iiiri.s«»lf  (jf  any 

i-'    .-If'       Ih. 

■  •  '  '  .(•;,  Hi 
T^*T^i'l  "oi'ti' 
shiiw,  (hilt  as 


JV...  h  r,<v.  |i 
hfttn    tf»  s<'pa 
putos  of  hi.*-  hi.- 
Tlir  nH'-r'i  nf  (■\ . 
'  '!*  !t   f  iunp  i-  |.>nil  it  ;ili\ 
ftkiag."     h  IS  H       ,<ript 
*'i..\c  Kiet'ii   ail  tj-i> 
M"iiti;t!>    .  '    s< 
K<ii  tnviis  ,  '  n 


Inui,  '  find  ihoi 

fi-Ail.  he  nmd*^  f/trce  <»,   ,«  }hc 

f^ruity    v.wuld    ix.'    imnirduitely 

j|l'n.h«'   <    dif t:i(«d  fo  him  tluit 

n-i  iic.  far  a.s  jxjssihle 


.Pf!% 


"^  '"t.ni 


fri.  ::  <  .ajM- ('dhmi'ia  t.u  the 

'f  the  trials  cif  *  trail 

•li     t  geiiuiiK   AnU     truvriijig.  .%«* 

'o  r*'nti  it.     O^ie  of  thf  j.rin.ijial 

s    f'i'arv.    I-    "'rpturiiini,'  owr    ti!=» 

I' h  dctjiil  \v;is  f  huus.tit 

'^'''''''^';'   '       ^-    jM^^^P^^^^i^fth-'"  tliat  without 
"keii  trail  ahejid 

riii.s  aJlegJitwiu  Vnr.il  Ig.  [.Jll.  PBHIlHH^j^,, .i^^rffd  hV'f.h*^ 


.^H 


if  !| 


1, 


\i\ 


TflAM 


^ 


iTAHflMASOAlO 


l<  .,  !, 


I  S       !'■■   try   iiimscit    ini.'sl 

la     ;   ■••;  j  \        i    ••■•il.      'lh<-y  ini.f '. 

«f1  If^^.'    -.IK';!    k-;.d.. 

•    S,     V  /   -"^     tho  i:ii:M).<isii.i)!t\ 


M»«ri>    V»V" *•"-  ^•.■i*-»»'^ 


J*. 


„W(1«'%< 


J 


k  >a'->\  'i! 


i    , 


wui  ^  •.■:\i:-Uii;.j||.       54 1      T.r;;'"    lilt-   jiiiriy 

itfr  (in   iiui'ii  iT  ut  ^i'  '!<»'    'f|rj  'Mter  is  (he  rhii"!  c 


kt  li  itiU>  ;ii-cT»!!il.     1 

i ;!   ''i'i"i;)  ti   -  F>;;r:ii-i' 

'  <lu!  lak'-,  .'•■    ■  'Il  ■ 

■'■'{ilioiis  111    N.'ixi 

■  i'lc  .lii'f  i<i  i r.ivf! 
,; ,'  j/urtii's  f!-;nvi:-il- 
\    ,  in  the  !t:uMi;iii;r  of 
111      ';■!■;;'"    liif   jsarly 


H\    11 


I  party.      . 

!  (  \  t',   •.n\  •-'  if  ru   thr 

i  ill  r:i''.v  I'l'iiK    t-<  !ci 
;     ,-,ih-  I  ..»;.  "J  ,„rr 


^      J     .    ,     ,     ,     *t  * .     .     .     .    **  ■**  <^.»-r»  ■*  «c*^ 


y^rfl...•*>^^■>I»«^^  ■<•«>*'«■"  ».-»"«•'«» -*"»rr-'~««<*' 


W^V^  >.  «tTviAA  ^  W^s  j»>B^,tt.ir> 


JOi 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


87 


It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  not  a  word  about  the  ad- 
vantages of  a  broken  trail  in  the  above  quotation  to  justify 
Peary's  speed.    To  have  called  attention  to  a  "broken  trail" 
or  "series  of  hills,"  or  "mountains  of  ice"  in  this  special 
description  would  have  been  stupid  indeed,  and  would  have 
nullified   the  purpose  of   the  description.    Peaiy  had  just 
finished  his  description  of  the  marvelous  speed  he  had  made  to 
the  Pole  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  and  leaving  the  broken 
trails.    It  was  a  description  of  traveling  over  untrodden  snow 
and  virgin  ice  floes  written  in  justification  of  that  speed.    He 
evidently  thought  some  explanation  necessary  to  account  for 
such  claims  for  speed  when  breaking  his  trails  himself  (if  any 
were  to  be  broken)  and  domg  the  camp  work  himself.    He, 
therefore,  wrote  the  above  paragraphs  as  a  fitting  climax  to 
his  description  of  his  miraculous  speed. 

Peaiy  could  not  safely  have  arranged  the  inconsistencies  in 
his  book  so  closely  together  as  to  say  in  one  paragraph  that  "one 
can  travel  faster  over  a  beaten  trail,"  and  then  show,  that  as 
soon  as  he  had  left  the  beaten  trail,  he  made  three  times  the 
former  speed.  Such  an  incongruity  would  be  immediately 
noticed.  Prudence,  therefore,  probably  dictated  to  him  that 
it  was  better  to  separate  his  contradictions  as  far  as  possible 
in  the  pages  of  his  book. 

The  record  of  every  day  north  from  Cape  Columbia  to  the 
Bartlett  Camp  is  principally  a  record  of  the  trials  of  "trail 
breaking."  It  b  a  description  of  genuine  Arctic  traveling,  as 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  read  it.  One  of  the  principal 
"essentials  of  success"  says  Peary,  is  "returning  over  the 
broken  trails  of  the  outward  march. "  Much  detaU  was  thought 
necessary  to  show  exactly  what  trail  breaking  is;  how  much 
labor,  strength  and  tune  it  consumes;  and  to  show  that  without 
a  broken  trail  ahead  Uttle  progress  can  be  made. 

This  all^ation  about  broken  trails  is  unsupported  by  the 
facts  as  given  in  his  book.  It  further  presumes  that  a  road 
can  be  made  across  the  ice  covered  polar  sea  over  whkh  aa 
expedition  may  travel  back  and  forth  in  oompaiatiye  ease  and 
comfort  for  at  least  M  days. 


88 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


I 


This  alleged  possibility  discredits  every  report  ever  made 
by  those  explorers  who  have  written  upon  the  subject.  The 
north  polar  sea  has  been  penetrated  on  many  meridians  by  many 
persons  at  different  times  for  300  years.  It  has  been  crossed  in 
many  latitudes  by  many  drifting  ships.  No  such  possibility 
has  ever  been  suggested,  but  its  absolute  impossibility  is  the 
unanimous  report  including  Peary  in  all  his  previous  writings, 
and  the  writmgs  of  Borup  of  the  present  expedition. 

The  record  north  of  the  allied  Bartlett  Camp  in  respect 
to  broken  trails  will  bear  a  brief  examination.  The  italicized 
lines  in  the  following  quotation  cover  every  word  in  Peary's 
book  as  to  breaking  trails  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp: 

"April  3.  *There  were  some  broad  heavy  pressure  ridges  in 
the  beginning  of  this  march  and  we  had  to  use  pickaxes  quite  freely. 
This  delayed  us  a  little,  but  as  soon  as  we  struck  the  level  old 
floes  we  tried  to  make  up  for  lost  time.  As  the  daylight  was 
now  continuous  we  could  travel  as  long  as  we  pleased,  and  sleep 
as  Uttle  as  we  must.  We  hustled  along  for  ten  hours  again, 
as  we  had  before,  making  only  twenty  miles  because  of  the  early 
delay  voith  the  pickaxes  and  another  brief  delay  at  an  arrow  lead. " 
Whatever  the  above  paragraph  contains  as  to  travel,  breaking 
trails  or  delays;  whether  it  be  much  or  little,  it  is  all  the  hind- 
rance he  says  he  had  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  until  he 
reached  land.  On  the  day  to  which  the  extract  refers  he  says 
he  made  20  miles,  equalling  in  distance  the  greatest  single 
march  he  ever  made  over  any  trail  prepared  by  Bartlett.  He 
obviously  omits  trail  breaking,  in  order  to  make  use  in  the  proper 
places  in  the  proper  way  of  both  conditions.  One  cannot  eat 
his  cake  and  have  it.  Peary  was  either  delayed  by  breaking 
trails  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  or  he  was  not.  One  or 
the  other  position  must  be  assumed  on  that  part  of  the  route, 
as  well  as  elsewhere. 

The  very  first  day  north  of  Bartlett  Camp,  he  alleged  that 
he  advanced  farther  than  any  one  day  since  leaving  land  or  25 
miles  of  latitude.  The  second  day  he  makes  only  20  miles, 
being  as  stated,  slightly  delayed.    But  every  day  thereafter, 

•North  Pole,  Page  279. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed  gg 

Bartlett  Camp  on  his  retun,  south,  he  goes  faster  and  faster 
Next  day  25.  then  28.  then  32-86^^3.  then  the  next  day  ^^e 
last,  he  ,s  back  to  the  starting  point,  the  Bartlett  Camp.    What 

Ts^TTlZZ'"^'  l"''^"  ^^  marvelous' increllL 
LT?  ^  1..  r*''^  ^^  accompUshments  of  the  first 
five  days  gomg  north  (of  25-20-25-28-32  miles  and  then  a  whirl 
around  the  outer  stake  of  26  miles  against  an  avera^  oTg  1 

perfect  conditions  permitted  it.    It  was  perfect  going  (in  this 

HeTL      *,:i.T*"**^*''°^^*^^^-     A  veritable  b^iievarf 
He  has  said  that  one  can  travel  from  50  to  100  per  cent  fasted 
If  one  does  not  need  to  stop  for  "breaking  trails."    ffis\3 
mdieat^  that  he  reverses  this  assertion  for  he  travelS  3^7^ 
cent  faster  immediately  after  Uaving  the  broken  trail,. 

Our  astonishment,  however,  was  not  fully  aroused  when 
-doig  of  ttus  first  part  of  his  ioum.^  north  of'^artl^c^^ 
He  IS.  to  be  sure,  travehng  over  an  unbroken  trail,  but  he  is 
mahng  only  the  comparatively  insignificant  increa^  k  sJlS 

hLk    '^         expUmation  is  very  weU  phrased  to  justify  the 
northward  march.    But  our  astonishment  reaches  theWk! 
pomt  when  reading  of  his  return  to  the  Bartlett  Camp  ovS 
same  ice  when  he  says  he  traveled  more  than  sixZ^i  f^ 
as  he  did  over  the  beaten  t««.k  with  Bartietfs  assS^L     U^ 
surety  cannot  add  100  per  cen^  to  perfect  condition"    ^ 
returns  makmg  45  miles  of  latitude  the  first  day  (the  7th)  68 
mil^  the  second  (the  8th)  and  on  the  thiiti  he  campS^^er 
mabng  only  25  mU^.  becau.  that  brought  him  bj^clp 
Bartlett.     He  was  4  days  19  hours  going  north  over  n^rf  Jh 
^.  but  only  2  days  and  18  hours  «t,SxLToverL^ 
road  (dunng  which  ktter  time  he  used  6  holTa  sWeT 
c,^  of  16  miles,  which  is  not  included  in  the  ou^^tute)' 
^n^uently.  the  record  is  that  he  made  over  350  peTc^ 
better  averages  gomg  north*  und  over  680  per  cenfbe^ 
'Group  14. 


90 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


%  ' 


averages  returning  south,*  than  he  made  when  trails  were  broken 
for  him  by  Bartlett  and  his  supporting  parties. 

If  that  portion  of  Peary's  narrative  which  relates  to  his 
rapid  speed  proves  anything,  it  is  (in  one  way  of  viewing  it) 
that  broken  trails  were  hindrances  to  his  progress.  At  any  rate 
whether  it  proves  this  or  not,  or  indicates  it  "r  not,  he  never 
went  so  very  fast  imtil  he  was  rid  of  them.  He  commenced  his 
increase  the  day  he  left  broken  trails,  and  he  did  not  begin  to 
slow  down  until  the  day  he  retimied  to  them.  He  then  kept 
slowed  down  as  long  as  he  was  on  them ;  never  again  in  a  single 
day  reaching  the  speed  he  made  while  av*^ay  from  them.  Peary's 
narrative  is  necessarily  conflicting  in  order  that  it  may  be 
evidence  against  Cook  in  one  instance  and  in  another  that  it 
can  be  used  in  favor  of  himself.  But  he  goes  too  far  and  is 
afterwards  obliged  to  contradict  himself  in  his  book  in  order  to 
\b,-j  a  foundation  for  his  own  marvelous  speed,  which  he  attempts 
to  show  later  in  his  stoiy.  His  attempt  to  blow  hot  and  cold 
in  the  une  breath  is  an  embarrassing  undertaking,  and  he  is 
certamly  riding  for  a  fall,  when  he  attempts  in  this  overstrained 
manner,  to  show  that  Cook  could  not  but  that  he  himself  could 
go  to  the  Pole.  What  the  actual  truth  is,  no  one  can  definitely 
tell,  but  any  one  can  show  what  Peary's  record  obviously  discloses. 

In  further  at* .  mpts  to  justify  his  speed,  Peary's  statements 
as  to  leads  are  Ljportant.  Henson  and  Bartlett  corroborate 
Peary's  oft  repeated  remark  that  all  leads  that  they  encountered 
"run  east  and  west."  But  the  leads  evidently  varied  once 
north  of  the  Bartlett  Camp.  Peary  says  he  struck  one  lead  on 
April  6,  frozen  over  "perfectly  smooth  running,  north  and  south. " 
Henson,  who  was  with  him,  did  not  observe  this  ice  avenue! 
But  were  these  open  wat«r  leads  such  awful  terrors  in  Arctic 
travel  after  all?  Peary  writes  in  September,  1910,  Hampton's 
in  contradiction  of  the  June  article,  that  he  traveled  from  the 
Bartlett  Camp  to  the  North  Pole  and  back  to  land,  across  the 
Arctic  Sea,  and  was  not  detained  two  hours  on  account  of  leads 
or  anything  else  on  the  whole  joum^! 

*Group  7. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


01 


Then  in  the  June  article  (for  Cook's  benefit)  there  is  "no 
iimooth  and  very  IMe  level  ice  between  Cape  Columbia  and  the 
North  Pole. "  But  m  the  SepU  mber  article  there  appears  to  be 
some  smooth  ice.  After  he  left  the  Bartlett  Camp,  "  The  surface 
of  the  ice  except  as  intercepted  by  INFREQUENT  pressure 
ridges  was  (w  level  as  the  glacial  fnnges  from  Heckla  to  Columbia 
and  harder;  dogs  on  trot  and  occasionally  on  the  rur.  made  25 
miles. "  This  march  brmgs  him  to  the  North  Pole.  -oes  not 
this  attempt  of  Peaiy's  to  justify  his  own  claims  for  speed  prove 
too  much?  I,  Peaiy  not  in  fact  proving  Cook's  contention  in 
his  frantic  attempt  to  discredit  him? 

It  is  interesting  and  not  inv'dious,  in  view  of  the  jealousy 
which  inspired  this  strained  endeavor  to  discredit  Cook,  to 
apply  the  facts  briefly  as  Peary  gives  them  to  Cook's  route. 
The  idea  that  "a  smaU  party  can  travel  faster  than  a  larger 
one"  brings  the  matter  own  to  exactly  Cook's  theo/y;  that 
just  sledges  enough,  suflScient  food  on  the  sleds  and  not  an  ounce 
of  anything  else  reduces  you  to  the  Eskimo  'oasis  so  that  if 
success  be  possible,  you  will  sticceed.  So  far  the  two  explorers 
seem  to  agree.  Cook  started  from  land  at  Svartevoeg,  520  miles 
distant  from  the  North  Pole,  with  80  days'  supplies.  If  Cook 
had  found  all  the  conditions  as  Peaiy  claims  to  have  foimd  them, 
and  could  have  traveled  as  fast  as  Pe.a-.y  claims  to  have  traveled. 
Cook  would  have  made  two  round  trips  to  the  Pole  and  back' 
2080  miles,  less  60.4  milcs.* 

Suppose  when  Cook  etum'>H  from  the  north  he  had 
reported  that  he  had  been  to  the  North  Pole  Iwice !  But  on  his 
return  from  the  second  trip  that  his  provisions  gave  out  wh^-n 
he  was  60.4  mUes  from  land.  But  that  he  traveled  this  one  r 
without  food  (or  two  days  on  half  rations)  and  reached  la^.. 
safely.  One  can  well  imagine  the  criticisms  that  would  have 
emanated  from  Peary's  supporters  in  Washington.  They  were 
horrified  when  Cook's  announcement  (which  preceded  Peaiy's) 
showed  that  he  had  one  day  traveled  29  geoeraphical  mUes  by 
his  pedometer  or  25.4  nautical  mUes,  and  all  of  Uiem  expUmed 
•D  agram  Ifi, 


II' 
V  Si 


I*'    I 
I'll 


hHrr 


Ik 


M 


jfftu  IA0  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


in  upison  through  the  press,  that  it  was  impossible  and  absurd. 
Chief  among  the  critics  was  Admiral  Mdville  himself  an 
arctic  hero  of  great  renown,  being  one  of  the  survivors  of  the 
ill  fated  Jeanette.  His  experience  in  traveling  over  ice  floes 
«n  the  Arctic  Sea  \7as  as  severe  as  anything  in  history.  He  was 
silent,  however,  when  Pear;'*s  announcement  of  his  claims  came 
out  later.  Had  Cook  made  the  announcement  that  he  had  been 
twice  at  the  Pole  he  would  have  only  equalled  Peary's  ciaims, 
not  exceeded  them. 

If  Peary  had  availed  himself  of  this  admitted  wisdoin  dl 
Cook  instead  of  the  alleged  wisdom  of  "experience"  and  of  his 
"system"  (if  his  tale  be  true),  he  would  have  saved  20  days  of 
time  and  travel.  If  he  had  started  from  Cape  Columbia  with 
his  n^jro  and  the  four  Eskimos  with  the  50  days'  provisions 
that  he  had  on  his  aleds,  (60  days  including  the  reservation  in 
the  dogs)  he  might  have  been  back  to  Cape  Columbia  in  84 
days  or  8  days  after  his  clumsy  outfit  had  actually  reached  the 
Bartlett  Camp.  If  Peary's  story  is  foimd  to  be  true,  the  North 
Pole  is  really  but  16  days'  march  from  Cape  Columbia — Si 
days  for  the  round  trip.  If  means  could  be  provided  for 
lightening  the  sledge  loads,  possibly  30  days  would  complete 
the  entire  journey.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  the 
Arctic  Sea  would  so  favor  Peary  that  it  would  be  a  "series  of 
bills,"  "mountains  of  ice,"  "open  leads,"  etc.,  to  obstruct  the 
path  of  Cook  and  to  be  "infrequent"  and  as  "level  as  the 
glacial  fringes  from  Heckla  to  Columbia  and  harder"  for 
Peary.  Anyway  some  better  foundation  than  Peary  furnishes 
should  be  laid  for  such  dispensation. 

We  have  at  least  shown  that  Peary's  narrative  north  of  the 
Bartlett  Camp  is  framed  very  imskillfully.  But  the  story 
south  of  the  Bdrtlett  Camp  b  in  many  ways  a  masterpiece. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  frequently  as  convincing  of  its  untruthfulness 
as  is  the  former  part.  Presumably  it  is  written  for  the  purpose 
of  enlightening  the  reader,  by  descriptions  of  his  joumeyings 
to  land.  It  is  in  truth  a  veritable  labyrinth  of  puerUe  non- 
essentials and  frivolous  details,  with  scarcely  a  single  statement 


Final  Proof  a  on  Speed  gg 

of  a  positive  natural  fact.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  this 
work  is  not  intentionally  designed  in  every  detail  to  prevent 
any  one  from  knowing,  except  in  a  general  way,  what  Peaiy 
actually  did  on  the  route  s<  uth. 

He  says  he  wa^  13  days  enroute  (April  10  to  28)  and  made 
13  marches.*    But  where  he  was  at  any  particular  hour,  at  any 
definite  spot,  even  to  igloos  or  camps;  how  many  hours  he 
marched;  how  many  slept  and  rested,  in  any  one  24  hour  period, 
would  puzzle  a  wise  man  to  tell.    One  need  only  to  attempt  it  to 
realize  fully  the  ingenuity  that  was  no-essaiy  to  accomplish 
such  a  perfect  residt.    The  story  completely  .x>nceals  in  mazes 
and  irrelevant  digressions  the  presumed  object  of  its  publication. 
However,  there  are  circumstances  that  shed  light  on  the  facta. 
In  order  to  justify  his  claim  for  speed  south  from  the 
Bartlett  Camp,  Peaiy  with  no  explanation,  cut  it  down  to 
nearly  one  quarter  of  the  pace  which  he  claimed  to  have  made 
north  of  that  camp.    The  only  way  to  account  for  this  sudden 
dimmution  of  speed  at  that  particular  point  is  that  north 
there  was  only  Henson  to  contradict  it  (and  Henson's  writings 
do  contradict  it),  but  that  south  ^here  were  others  to  contradict, 
and  possibly  to  compare.    It  was  sa'er  for  many  rtsasons  to 
make  less  claim  for  speed  south  of  the  Bartlett  Camp. 

Before  passing  filial  judgment  upon  Peary's  chiims  over 
this  space,  let  us  examine  the  return  record  of  his  various 
supporting  parties,  beginning  with  Bartlett.  The  allegations 
m  this  case  are  found  m  Bartlett's  (aUeged)  log,  which  Peary 
offered  as  evidence  in  Washington. 

The  following  quotations  cover  the  log  from  Camp  22  to  the 
Roosevelt:'f 

1^  "^r?  ^\  ^^^'  ^  P-  ^'  ^«^*  Commander  with  la  togs  1 
Sledge,  2  huskies  and  just  eiiough  for  40  days.  Midnieht 
r^^l^^Tx^fr  t^««ty-first  igloo,  where  wo  slept.  Fine  and  clear 
fresh  NNW  wmd  One  of  our  dogs  clipped  its  hamS^  .S 
back  to  commander  s  party.  '^ 

*Diagram  3.    Page  38. 
tTest,  Page  50. 


vm 


I? 


94  Has  the  North  PoU  Been  DUcovered 

"April  2,  2  p.  m.  broke  camp,  reaching  the  next  igloo, 
boiled  the  kettle,  then  started  on  again.    Quite  a  few  changes 

"April  3,  10  a.  ra,  reached  nineteenth  igloo,  slept  here, 
kiUed  three  dogs,  picked  up  a  tin  of  blue  pemmican.  Fresh 
north  wind,  fine  and  clear.     Lots  of  strips  of  young  ice  and 

'^  '^^'ApHl  rV  a.  m.  reached  eighteenth  igloo.  Held  up  by 
water.  Had  a  sleep.  Noon  walked  to  lead,  found  it  had 
broadened.  Saw  a  seal.  Went  ba<-k  to  igloo,  had  another 
sleep.    Hazy,  blowing  fresh  north,  with  drift.  , 

"Aprils,  2  p.  m.  wind  dropped.  Walked  to  lead,  it  had 
barely  caught  over.  Indications  of  rafting.  Had  tea,  and  by 
the  time  we  were  ready  owing  to  the  rafting  we  could  crossover. 
Wind  light  SW.  hazy.  .^ 

"April  6,  10  a.  m.  reached  seventeenth  igloo.    Kepaired 
our  sledge.    Had  tea.     Light    SW    wind,    fine    and    clear. 
About  midnight  reached  the  sixteenth  igloo,  where  we  slept. 
"AprU  8,  reached  the  fourteenth  igloo.     Lots  of  stnps  of 
young  ice,  also  leads  of  water,  but  by  making  detours  east  and 
west  successfully  negotiated  them,  also  picking  up  mam  trail. 
"April  10,  reached  the  twelfth  igloo.    Sunply a  r^tition 
of  the  other  two.     Marches  fine  and  clear,  naoderate  E  wmd. 
"Aryril  11,  reached  the  tenth  igloo,  dead  tired.    Stnps  of 
young  ice  and  leads  of  water.    Sky  overcast.     Wmd  west. 

"Awil  IS,  shortly  after  leaving  igloo,  lost  mam  trail, 
followed  Marv'in's,  losing  it  on  a  long,  wide  strip  of  young  ice. 
Wind  west,  strong,  fine  and  clear.  Built  igloo,  first  smce  leaving 
couimander.  Had  a  sleep  and  started  on  agam.  bhorUy 
after  leaving  picked  up  main  trail,  reaching  the  seventh  igloo; 
built  a  sledge;  also  had  a  sleep.  Fine,  clear  and  caUn.  From 
here  we  could  see  the  land. 

"April  15,  reached  the  fifth  igloo.    Sky  overcast,  light 

east  wind.    Shortly  after  leaving  lost  trail  on  young  ice,  where 

we  met  a  lead  of  open  water.  l      u  -u 

"April  16,  bad  going  at  times  dunng  this  march.     Bmlt 

igloo.    Had  a  sleep.    Weather  clearing.     Land  obscured. 

"April  17,  fairly  good  going  today.  Fine  and  clear,  hazy 
at  times  toward  land.     Built  igloo,  where  we  slept. 

"April  18,  reached  ice  foot  a  few  miles  west  of  Cape  Nares. 
Fine  and  clear.  Built  igloo;  had  a  short  sleep.  Started  on 
again,  reachmg  Cape  Columbia  late  in  the  day.  ^^ 

"April  20,  left  Columbia,  reachmg  the  ship  on  the  24Ui. 


hS 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


05 


This  alleged  log  has  some  peculiar  earmarks.  It  will  be 
observed  that  traveling  south  from  the  Bartlett  Camp  until  he 
passes  the  Marvin  Camp,  Bartlett  writes  apparently  a  genuine 
log.  He  gives  the  hours  of  departure  and  arrival  each  day,  and 
other  matters  of  interest,  as  is  customary  in  writing  up  a  log 
book.  But  as  soon  as  he  passes  the  Marvin  Camp,  when  he 
gets  into  competitive  territory  himself,  all  changes.  It  is  no 
longer  a  log,  it  is  an  ambidexter.  He  omits  the  hours  of  arrival 
and  departure  in  every  instance,  and  even  omits  4  days  alto- 
gether, without  comment.  Peary  says  that  "Bartlett  returned 
in  IS  marches."  But  that  fact  does  not  show  in  this  alleged 
"log"  which  covers  dates  from  April  1  to  18.  The  "log" 
presumes  to  note  regularly  his  sleeps;  but  it  does  not  note  any 
sleep  from  April  6, 12  p.  m.  to  April  13,  about  a  week.  Perhaps 
Peary  calls  this  ONE  MARCH. 

This  "log"  indicates  that  during  the  18  days'  trip  to  land 
(April  1  to  18  inclusive),  Bartlett  slept  only  10  times;  two  of 
those  were  or  the  4th  when  he  did  not  march,  being  detained 
by  a  lead.  It  would,  therefore,  appear  that  Bartlett  marched  on 
the  average  about  two  days  before  stopping  to  sleep.  To  make 
it  plainer,  he  actually  made  altogether  the  equivalent  of  8  marches 
without  any  sleep.  (This  exceeds  the  29.9  hours  shown  in 
table  on  page  37  but  it  agrees  fairly  well  with  Borup's  stete- 
ment.)  Furthermore,  in  this  alleged  Bartlett  log,  it  will  be 
observed  that  he  omits  4  days;  the  7th,  9th,  12th  and  14th,  (and 
also  omits  after  Apr.  6th  all  reference  to  hours  of  arrival  and 
departure.)  It  is  probable  that  on  these  days  he  was  marching 
and  not  sleeping.  Anyway  this  furnishes  some  data  from 
which  to  make  deductions. 

If  Bartlett  marched  40  hours  at  times  without  sleep,  as 
Borup  says  he  did,  or  made  an  equivalent  of  8  extra  marches, 
during  the  calendar  days  he  was  on  his  journey,  (for  purposes 
of  comparison  with  Peaiy),  Bartlett  did  actually  march  the 
equivalent  of  S6  days  enroute.  In  other  words,  if  Bartlett  had 
slept  every  day  and  marched  only  the  regulation  10  hours  each 
day,  he  would  have  been  26  calendar  days  getting  to  land  instead 


v^ 


06 


Bat  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecocered 


i  if; 


^li 


of  18.  Peary  alleged  that  he  (Peary)  followed  over  this  same 
trail  with  his  caravan,  and  made  it  in  IS  days  (or  IS  marches), 
that  is  in  just  half  the  time  that  Bartlett  really  used. 

Bartlett  had  only  "one  sledge,  two  huskies  with  19  dogs  ana 
just  enough  for  40  days."  He  evidently  had  plenty  of  dogs, 
for  he  killed  S  the  second  day  out.  It  would  seem  that  he  could 
and  should  have  made  much  faster  time  per  hour  than  could 
Peary.  He  was  returning  to  land,  had  great  physical  en- 
durance, reserve,  vitality,  against  which  he  drew  liberally  in 
order  to  get  off  the  ice  before  it  broke  up.  Had  Bartlett,  there- 
fore, marched  only  the  regulation  10  hours  per  day,  he  would 
have  arrived  at  Columbia  on  the  26th  of  April,  instead  of  the 
18th,  which  would  have  been  three  days  after  Peary's  arrival. 

Take  another  view.  Both  claimed  to  have  started  from 
the  Bartlett  Camp  at  87"  47',  Bartlett  on  April  1,  Peary  the 
next  day  on  April  2;  Bartlett  going  south  to  land  with  one  day's 
start,  and  Peary  one  day  later  going  north  to  the  Pole,  spending 
one  day  and  a  half  there,  and  returning  over  the  same  route, 
in  the  same  tracks  *^o  the  same  place.  It  will,  therefore,  be 
plainly  seen  that  had  Bartlett  marched  only  10  hours  each  day, 
Peary  coming  down  the  stretch  behind  him,  tcotdd  have  overtaken 
him  and  passed  him,  and  reached  land  three  days  ahead  of  him. 
Bartlett,  therefor  was  able  to  keep  out  of  his  way  and  reach 
land  first,  only  by  marching  (or  making  a  record  of  marching) 
without  sleep  40  hours  at  a  time. 

It  is  perfectly  clear  from  these  comparisons,  that  Peary's 
testimony  that  Bartlett  went  north  in  22  marches  and  returned 
in  13  is  only  a  half  truth,  which  is  in  this  instance,  equivalent 
to  an  untruth.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  and  as  a  just  comparison 
Bartlett  went  north  in  22  marches  and  returned  in  24  marches. 
TLe  whole  truth  would  have  made  the  statement  entirely 
different  in  effect,  but  it  would,  of  course  have  spoiled  a  plausible 
comparison.  Forty  hours  in  one  march  is  practically  four 
marches  by  way  of  comparison  with  marches  of  10  hours  each, 
notfcwe  march  as  Peary  reports  it  for  comparison.    This  point 


Final  Proqft  on  Speed  97 

can  be  analyzed  a  little  finer  to  satisfy  those  who  wish  greater 
exactitude.  ^ 

Leaving  out  of  the  equation  the  prodigious  energy  and 
physical  endurance  of  this  man  Bartlett  who  can  march  40 
hours  at  a  stretch  without  sleep,  and  considtrn«  only  his  lea 
efficiency  and  that  of  his  dogs,  it  wiU  be  found  that  the  truth 
IS,  that  he  actually  marched  in  a  given  number  of  hours,  at 
about  the  same  speed,  covering  about  the  same  distance  when 
returning  south,  as  he  did  going  north,  with  the  supporting 
parties.     Conceding  that  Bartlett  was  26  mart;hing  days  of  10 
hours  each,  returning  to  land,  and  that  of  these,  (in  even  figures) 
one  and  one  half  days  were  lost  at  the  lead  on  the  4th.  he  would 
have  actually  marched  24^  days  in  returning,  which  is  two 
days  more  than  was  consumed  in  marching,  on  the  outward 
trip.     If  this  proves  anything,  it  is  in  effect,  that  it  was  im- 
possible  for  him  to  make  greater  speed  returning,  than  was 
made  by  the  expedition  on  the  outward  march  to  Camp  Bartlett 
It  would  be  considered  practically  impossible  to  phice  any 
ordinary  human  being  on  the  polar  ice  who  could  exceed  Bartlett 
m  energy,  endurance,  or  perseverance,  who  in  order  to  excel, 
marched  40  hours  without  sleep. 

Next,  what  is  the  return  record  of  the  other  supporting 
par  les?  Peary  offers  as  further  evidence  to  justify  his  speed 
south,  the  record  m  "marches"  of  his  supporting  parties^ 
their  return.     Here  is  his  voluntary  testimony.* 

tapt.  Peary:    'There  is  a  matter  that  I  would  like  to 
hmg  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  which  maTbe  interest" 

DLS'oir^h'/  *V''.5'"*'Tr  ^^  ^  *  recoS  Jf  the  r^fuJL 
K.  %lu      ''"*'^^'^  '?'^  ***  *^«  different  supporting  part^ 

SbTa 'tothe  Pofe"  '"'''""  '^"^  *^"'  ^«  ^^*''  '^^  ^^^ 
"Mr.  Butler:     The  ice  trail?* 

BoruD  retnrr^'^'    "^^^  *''*!'  °^*'"  *^«  '^«  °'  the  Aretic  regions 
Sn  SS  U.  r  ™r^  ^^^"^  ^  *»"'^»^  marehes^Mc: 
retu^  J  rV    "  \°^^^«hes  over  7  outward  marches.     Borup  ' 

^^.Znl  pT'r  •^"^   ''  ^"'""^  ^^^''''-     »""«" 


06 


Hat  the  North  PoU  bttn  Ditcomtd 


returned   in   IS  marches  over  ««  outward  marches.    Peary 
returned  in  16  over  87  outward  noarches.    Those  are  the  timra 

*"  .,*^"®"***  *>'  **>*  various  supporting  parties  over  the  same 
trail. 

To  make  this  testimony  or  record  complete,  there  should 
be  added:  "Peary  claims  in  another  place  to  have  returned 
himself  from  the  Bartlett  Camp  in  18  marches"  which  corres- 
ponds with  the  report  of  Bartlett's  record  to  a  day. 

What  is  the  purpose  of  these  comparisons  by  "marches. 
It  may  be  this:  marches  are  elastic  and  indefinite,  some  of 
them  in  this  record  are  6  miles  long,  others  62:  some  ate  an 
hour  or  two  in  length,  others  40.  It  can  be  readily  understood 
that  by  proper  division  "marches"  can  be  made  to  fit  any 
circumstance.  If  the  location  and  dates,  the  distance  and  time 
are  concealed  so  that  no  one  can  tell  what  they  are.  marches  are 
valueless  for  comparison.  But  their  introduction  is  valuable 
evidence.  Peary  proves  nothing  by  this  comparison,  but  he 
attempts  to  do  so.    It  is  the  attempt  that  is  significant. 

Pwuy  writM  further  on  the  subject  of  return  marches:' 

A  4U    J**!'"*?^^^  ****.  RooaeveU,  I  learned  that  MacMiUan 
and  the  doctor  had  reached  the  ship  March  «1.  Borup  on 

^r«  ^'t  *"®  *''''™°  survivors  of  Marvin's  party  Anril  17 
and  Bartlett  on  April  24."  ^     ^  ' 

Knowing  the  dates  that  each  of  these  men  started  on  his  return 
journey,  it  will  be  seen  by  Table  No.  7  that  the  various  support- 
ing parUes  who  returned  to  Cape  Sheridan,  or  to  the  RooseveU, 
consumed  mo^e  time  on  the  trip  than  did  Peaiy  with  his  tired 
party  who  followed. 

McMillan  made  the  short  return  trip  of  82  miles  on  the 
Polar  Sea.  and  90  miles  (Columbia  to  Sheridan)  on  Iin.!  in 
6  days  as  against  Peary's  8  days.  He  is  the  only  one  Vho 
wiuaUed  Peaiy's  spetxl  measured  in  days,  instead  of  marches. 
But  Peary  rested  2  days  at  Cape  Columbia  on  this  return  trip 
after  his  long  journey.  We  do  not  know  what  McMillan  did 
If  he  stopped  to  rest  the  traveling  days  were  equal.  But  Mc- 
Millan and  his  dogs  were  fresh  and  had  traveled  only  82  miles 
*Nortk  Pole.  Page  385. 


Final  Proqfs  on  Spetd 

TABLE  VII 
SPEED 

COMPARINO    MARCnU. 

RrruHN  From  Farthmt  Nobth  or  Each  Partt. 


Pe*ry 


Sectiun 


I)ay» 


Rartlett  Camn 

to 
RooHcvelt 

Marvin  Camp 

to 
Roosevelt 


BartJett 


Days 


Marvum 
EakinuNi 


17 


Borup  Camp 

to 
Roosevelt 


14 


M 


Day. 


Borup 


Daya 


McMillan 


Day* 


18 


McMillan's  Camp 
to  ^ 

Roosevelt 


11 


14 


n 


II 


n 


._ 


Uie  same  tj.  ?.  ,    u-    ■  ""  Purpose  that  does  not  leU 

the  ^Zn^     u  '"r^We  chdm,  for  ,pe«l.    Comp«e 

hi  r       ^^  °™  "■'  ■«'  ««='«>■>  of  thefeumey  fV 
X  bte^?''?  '"  ^"^  «'«"'*«-  (Table  nHT'  'tT,, 


y-t^« 


I 


ik. 


n 


100 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


TABLE  VIII 

Marches  of  Returning  Parties  From  Cape  Columbia  to  Cape 

Sheridan. 


Pages 


Book 


Parties 


Number  of 
Marches 


197       Tenderfoot  with  Peary 


203    I  Tenderfoot  with  Peary 


Borup 


Remarks 


Marvin's 
Eskimos 


53       Testimony  Wash.  U.  C.j       Bartlett 


3  or  4 


3  or  4 


Left  aoth 
Arrived  24th 
No  hours  given. 


317       North  P<)le^ 


Peary 


Marvin's  testimony  might  be  of  value  but  Mamn  is  not 
here  to  teU  what  he  knew,  for  he  is  imported  to  have  b«en  ^ost 
at  the  big  lead,  which  is  between  Camps  No.  4  and  No^5 
(Diagram  3).    Peary  writes  of  this  as  follows:*       The  bskimos 
S  he  was  drowned^and  so  they,  (the  Eskimos)  threw  from  he 
sledge  everything  they  could  find  belonging  to  him;  that  the 
:^t,  if  if  cam!  back  that  way,  might  find  these  Pe«onal 
belongings  and  not  pursue  the  men.    Then  they  humed  for  the 
land  as  fast  as  they  could  go."t    Peary  further  says :t       For- 
tunately in  throwing  Marvin's  things  upon  the  ice,  they  over- 
looked a  Httle  canvas  pocket  on  tne  upstand  o    the  sledge 
containing,  a  few  of  his  notes;  among  them  -^j^t  -  P-^ab^ 
the  last  thing  he  ever  wrote.     It  is  so  typical  of  the  man  s 
intelligent  devotion  to  his  duty,  that  it  is  h«'^^«PP«^*^.^^'"J  ! 
y^ote  it.    It  will  be  seen  that  it  was  written  on  the  very  day  that 
I  last  saw  him  alive,  that  day  upon  which  he  turned  back  to  the 

south  from  his  farthest  north."  *„^»h  hack 

"March  25.  1909.    This  is  to  certify  that  I  turned  bacK 

SotS'  ^L  J»withrfr4SiXu-.^-; 

SX^^Jrhi^Sthat. the  Eskimos    -^mp^  o.  the  uc^ti 
old  ile  and  the  next  morning  found  his  body  had  gone  down.  ■ 

tHampton't.  Sept.  1910,  Page  292. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


101 


ing  party  expects  to  turn  back  at  the  end  of  five  more  marches. 
Determined  our  latitude  by  observations  on  March  22,  and  agam 
today,  March  25.  A  copy  of  the  observations  and  computa- 
tions is  herewith  inclosed.  Results  of  observations  were  as 
foUows:  Latitude  at  noon,  March  22. 85»  48'  North.  Latitude 
at  noon  March  25,  86°  38'.  Distance  made  good  m  three 
marches  fifty  minutes  of  latitude,  an  average  of  sixteen  and 
two-thirds  nautical  miles  per  march.    The  weather  is  fine,  gomg 

good  and  improving  each  day."  ^  ,, 

•*  Ross  G.  Marvin, 

College  of  Civil  Engineering. 
Cornell  University. 
Peaiy  writes:  "Of  course,  Marvin's  other  belongings 
will  never  be  recovered.  They  will  be  carried  to  and  fro  with 
the  movement  of  the  ice  and  the  tides,  finally  sinking  into  the 
water."  In  this  brief  manner  is  related  an  unfortunate  affair, 
which  is  alluded  to  here  with  hesitation.  It  seems  ahnost 
ghoulish  to  make  use  of  this  sad  event  to  bolster  arctic  ambition. 
The  death  of  a  comrade  and  shipmate  is  one  of  the  saddest 
occurrences  in  Ufe.  It  would  seem  that  a  proper  conaderation 
of  the  proprieties  of  the  occasion  would  call  for  a  different 
announcement  even  though  this  one  is  innocently  made.  Was 
it  "fortunate"  or  unfortunate,  that  the  sample  of  earth  brought 
up  at  the  alleged  soimdings  of  700  fathoms  and  310  fathoms 
was  lost?  These  were  the  only  complete  soundings  claimed  to 
have  been  made  in  the  joimiey.  These  samples  of  earth  if  they 
existed  were  absolutely  all  that  there  was,  of  a  positive  nature 
m  the  whole  expedition  that  might  be  checked  in  the  future. 
They  are  gone.    Not  a  thing  is  left,  but  a  story. 

The  Eskimos  threw  away  all  they  could  find  belonging  to 
him  save  "the  little  canvas  pocket  on  the  upstands  of  the 
sledge,"  which  fortunately  happened  to  be  overlooked,  and  it 
seems  more  fortiuiate  still,  continued  to  be  overlooked  hanging 
on  the  upstands  of  the  sledge  right  before  their  eyea  while  ihey 
were  returning  to  the  ship,  and  it  was  *'fort\mate"  again  to 
contain  only  this  very  certificate  which  is  published  in  full, 
which  just  fits  in  to  corroborate  and  furnish  very  welcome  data. 
Marvm's  diaries,  his  other  writings,  whatever  they  might  tell. 


102 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


t,  li 


especially  the  important  soundings  were  all  lost.  Marvin 
breaks  through  the  ice,  out  of  sight,  alone,  ahead  of  the  Eskimos, 
but  the  Eskimos  with  the  heavy  sleds  pass  over  safely.  Further 
details  of  this  tragedy  have  probably  been  furnished  Marvin's 
friends.  If  they  were  given  to  the  public,  it  wculd  much  relieve 
the  tension.  The  nature  of  this  sorrowful  tale  precludes  further 
allusion  to  it,  in  a  cold  calculating  analysis. 

Henson  describes  the  action  of  the  Eskimos  as  follows: 
"The  foolish  boyj>,  in  accordance  with  Eskimo  tradition,  had 
unloaded  all  of  Prof.  Marvin's  personal  effects  on  the  ice." 
These  things  of  Marvin's,  like  the  penunicau  cans  that  Peary 
distributed  on  his  outward  trip  as  beacons  for  his  return,  would 
very  likely  have  remained  "on  the  ice, "  right  on  the  trail,  unless 
that  particular  spot  of  ice  floated  away.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
the  Eskimos  followed  "the  trail  of  Marvin's  footsteps"  to  the 
spot  where  he  is  said  to  have  broken  through  the  ice.  They, 
of  course,  made  a  trail  of  other  footsteps  themselves  from  there 
on  to  land,  as  did  Bartlett  who  followed  them.  But  the 
peculiar  coincidence  is  that  the  trail  of  these  Eskimos,  after 
leaving  this  spot  is  the  only  one  between  the  North  Pole 
and  land  that  is  not  left  intact,  and  it  breaks  singularly  enough 
right  at  Marvin's  grave.  Bartlett  wTites  in  his  so-called  log:* 
"April  15.  Reached  the  fifth  igloo.  Sky  overcast,  light  east 
wind.  Shortly  after  leaving  lost  trail  on  yoimg  ice,  where  we 
met  a  lead  of  open  water.  After  a  while  the  lead  rafted  so  that 
we  could  cross. "  This  brings  Bartlett  apparently  right  to  the 
spot  where  Marvin  was  alleged  to  have  been  drowned,  following 
the  trail  all  the  way.  He  sees  the  trail,  but  he  does  not  report 
having  seen  Marvin's  t'liuij^s  that  were  left  "on  the  ice"  by  the 
Eskimos.    The  trail  seems  to  break  right  there  or  near  there. 

Peary  also  com  js  along  a  few  days  later  and  he  too  reaches 
the  fifth  outward  camp  and  writes :t  "So  far  we  had  seemed  to 
Iwar  a  charm  v  hich  protected  us  from  all  difiBculties  and 
dangers.  While  Bartlett  and  Marvin  and,  as  I  found  out  later, 

•Testimony,  Page  51. 
\North  Pole,  Page  318. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


108 


Borup  had  been  delayed  by  open  leads,  at  no  single  lead  had  we 
been  delayed  more  than  a  couple  of  hours.     It  had  seemed  as  if 
the  guardian  genius  of  the  polar  waste,  having  at  last  been 
vanquished  by  man,  had  accepted  defeat  and  withdrawn  from 
the  contest."    He  then  writes:*    "Although  the 'Big  Lead' 
was  frozen  over  we  fomid  that  Bartlett  on  his  return  had  lost 
the  mam  traU  here  and  did  not  find  it  again.    For  the  rest  of 
the  icejoumey,  therefore,  we  were  compelled  to  follow  the  single 
trail  made  by  Bartlett  instead  of  our  weU  beaten  outward  trail. 
I  could  not  complain.     We  had  kept  the  beaten  road  back  to 
withm  some  fifty  miles  to  the  land. "    Peary,  therefore,  as  well 
as  Bartlett  and  the  Eskimos  marched  with  an  unbroken  trail 
nght  to  the  spot  where  Marvin  was  reported  drowned,  and 
where  according  to  the  story,  naturaUy  his  things  would  have 
been  seen  lying  "on  the  ice"  near  by  or  in  the  traU.    But  al- 
though the  Eskimos  went  directly  on  to  land,  their  traU  broke 
right  there  before  BarUett's  arrival  and  took  away  Marvin's 
thmgs,  including  the  samples  of  soundings  and  then  closed  soKd 
agam.    Conse(]uently,  Bartlett  makes  a  new  trail  over  the  ice 
where  Marvm's  tilings  would  naturaUy  have  been,  and  this  new 
trail  remams  intact  so  that  Peaiy  foUows  it  on  to  land. 

If  there  is  one  fact  more  prominent  than  another  in  this 
pecuhar  coincidence,  it  is  that  the  c'<. appearance  of  Marvin's 
thmgs  escaped  the  notice  of  Peary,  Bartlett  and  Henson  in  aU 
Uieir  writmgs.    They  make  garrulous  accounts  in  superfluous 
detail    of  many  non-essential,  and  some  non-sensical  things 
of  daily  occurrence.    But  the  only  breaking  of  the  trail  on  the 
whole  trip  occurrmg  right  at  the  grave  of  a  comrade,  the  tragic 
event  of  the  expedition,  the  loss  of  the  specimens  of  the  aUeged 
soundings  m  Marvin's  possession,  the  only  thmg  they  could 
have  brought  back  that  might  sometime  be  checked  by  other 
explorers,  is  not  even  worth  a  word  of  notice.    The  breakmg  of 
the  traU  is  the  only  accident  that  can  be  thought  of.  that  could 
have  happened  to  let  them  pass  that  spot  without  observing 
^^^i".  ""^  ^'''^''  **  '^^y  P^^'    Therefore,  an  Z 

*North  Pole.  Page  314. 


104 


Has  the  Nortli  Pole  Been  Discovered 


faulted  trail  remained  intact  from  the  day  of  leaving  land,  until 
land  was  again  sighted  by  Bartlett  on  his  return  all  the  way 
from  Cape  Columbia  to  the  Pole  and  back  across  the  whole 
circumpolar  sea  except  a  temporary  fault  quickly  restored  by 
Bartlett  at  the  grave  of  Marvin. 

There  is  now  no  positive  evidence  furnished  (except  by 
Bartlett)  that  Peary  ever  went  north  of  85°  23'  where  Borup 
turned  back.    Here  a  sounding  is  alleged  to  have  been  made  of 
SIC  fathoms,  and  it  is  the  last  that  was  made.    Borup  could 
have  taken  th-  samples  back  with  him,  but  did  not.    There  is, 
therefore,  not  one  tangible  thing,  that  can  be  used  to  show  that 
Peary  ever  proceeded  beyond  this  pomt.    This  sounding  even, 
is  not  positive  evidence,  for  Peary  reports  to  the  C-.vemment 
on  October  28,     "Unfortunately  the  samples  of  soundings  on 
the  northern  journey  beyond  the  sounding  of  110  fathoms  were 
lost  with  Professor  Marvin."    This  statement  reduces  the 
positive  evidence  of  soundings  "made  all  the  way  to  the  Pole" 
to  a  point  marked  zero. 

It  is  true,  Peary  writes  that  attempts  to  get  soundings  were 
made  after  leaving  the  Borup  Camp,  but  they  were  surely  only 
allegations,  as  it  will  be  noticed  that  not  one  of  them  makes 
any  record  except  "no  bottom"  which  is  meanmgless  when  it  is 
noticed  how  they  were  made.    The  alleged  sounding  of  1500 
fathoms  near  the  Pole  is  surrounded  with  so  many  absurd 
features,  that  it  is  impossible  for  experienced  men  to  give  it 
any  credence.    He  had  only  one  lead  shaved  down  to  14  lbs. 
left,  to  sink  one  and  three  quarters  miles  of  wire  in  that  arctic 
current,  which  "piles  up  those  stupendous  pressure  ridges, 
mountains  high."    The  wire  he  says,  was  drawn  out  of  icy 
water  six  days  before,  and  wound  on  the  reel  when  the  ther- 
mometer was  40°  below  zero.    How  could  it  be  unwound?    How 
long  would  it  take?    How  deep  would  14  lbs.  sink  it?      Peary 
writes:*     "In  pulling  up,  the  wire  parted  a  few  fathoms  from 
the  surface  and  lead  and  wire  went  to  the  bottom."     This 
statement  may  be  important  in  the  future  if  other  soundings 
*Outlook.  Sept.  IL.,  1909,  Page  101. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed  iQg 

are  made  at  that  point.  It  would  be  interesting  to  hear  from 
the  Naval  Department  as  to  this  addition  to  hydrographic 
science,  that  was  reported  to  them.  s    i  ii«^ 

There  is  therefore,  not  a  scintiUa  of  positive  evidence 
except  that  of  Bartlctt  that  Peary  went  on  this  trip  beyond  the 
Borup  (  amp  85"  23'.  Borup  turned  back  at  this  point  Mar- 
vm,  Bartlett,  and  Peaiy  were  left.  Marvin  is  dead.  Bartlett's 
mouth  ,s  sealed  Benson's  work  is  censored.  All  beyond  this 
depends  upon  the  word  of  Pear3\ 

Having  so  far  reviewed  Peary's  narrative  as  to  speed,  and 
shown  that  doubts  may  properly  exist  as  to  his  ability  to  make 
records  as  reported,  suspicion  is  fully  aroused.  As  a  mere 
matter  of  justice  we  must  inquire  into  the  defense  made  for 
leary  s  claims  for  speed,  although  the  contention,  that  Pearyr 
did  not  make  the  speed  he  claims,  can  be  nearly  as  well  shown 
by  his  champions  as  by  analysis. 

.11  ^^^u  ^^T  P"*^««^«l  i»i«  '""  «toiy,  all  the  facts  were 
alleged  to  have  been  submitted  to  a  committee  of  the  National 
Geographic  Society,  who  upon  an  aUeged  scientific  examination, 
announced  to  the  world  that  Peary  had  proved  to  them  thai 
he  had  been  o  the  North  Pole.  To  defend  themselves,  they 
came  to  his  rehef  when  questions  as  to  the  veracity  of  his  claims 
began  to  appear  In  the  Congres^nal  Record  of  Mareh  22. 
1910  IS  a  speech  by  Congiessman  Moore  in  Peary's  behalf  (in 

director  and  editor  of  the  National  Geographic  Society),  reply- 
Za  ^;r^'''^^  Macon's  speech  previously  delivered^;- 
ga  ding  the  speed  Peaiy  claims  to  have  made.  As  this  letter 
Wo!    A    ^"*'^«'^*>«^'"f«""ation  given  out  in  reference  to  the 

zx::t  ^' '''  ''^''''''  ^^^'  •  •' '« ^*«-'-«  *o 

the  ^t^^r^^e^l^'"^  ''  "^"'^  ^  '''  '^^  '^^  ^ 
last  northern  sledge  journey.  I  have  gone  to  iame  tmuWe  to 


ill 


••"■,   8 


tl: 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


106 

obtain  conect  figure,  fro^  the  narrative  of  Peary's  last  and 

^-^.^rcJfr  cures  to^-^^^^^^^^^^  ^ 

verify  these  figures,  and  will  fi^^L^  JarTfrom  Cape  Columbia 

"Peary's  average  distance  P*/  '^"'^J  ;  ^^     Had  it  not  been 
to  where  Bartlett  turned  hack  ^««  ^^/^^^^^^  this  average 

for  the  north  wind  two  days,  g«mg  fem  '^^^j^„^  ^  ^en 

would  have  been  13^  miles.     Between^         ^^^   ^^^   ^^j^^ 
bv  Marvin   the   average   of   tnree   iii.u 
Several  of  the  marches  were  ^Oj^^^^^^i^^t  jeft  him.  to  the  Pole 

"His  average,  from  the  t^n^^.^f*^"       ^^s    25.6    miles.' 
was  26  miles.    His  --^Xth^^t^e  fi^Zas  showing  that 

l^/?:CfS%h:nTr^atf  onri^^^^  -d  previous 

°"^^:  Peary's  last  2  -rches  -  Uie^ejurn^- ^^^^^^ 

fdStance  of  45  to  50  nnles.  was  g^de  "i  on  ^^^ 

distance  from  Cape  Columbia  to  H^Wa  wa  ^  ^^^  ^        j^ 
other  occasions  in  one  march      ^  n«  «i  ^^^^^1    ^ade  m 

to  Porter  Bay,  a  distance  of  ^^  ^S^^'^d  Borup.  retummg 
eight,  ten  and  twelve  hours  ^c^lw^  J"^  ^^  ^^^^^^e 
i^m  Cape  Morris  J«««"P  ^^^^^^^Tw  of  over  31  miles 
of  250  miles  or  more  m  8™J'T?f^Xr  expeditions  made  the 
a  march.  Peaiy,  Vll.,  to  CaS  D'UrX,  a  distance  of  65 
distance  from  Cape  Wilkes  to  J^^P*  ^  ^^^j  '^ade  the  march 
to  70  miles  n  one  '^^^^^^f  J^sTa  dTsLce  of  40  miles  in 
from  Cape  D  Urville  to  ^ape  *  f^s^J  *  ^  ^^^^^led  from  Etah 
Vr^  RoS^^r Say!  TJL  distant,  in  less  than 

^-^^^.^rhis  :etum  from  I^depen^^s^^^^ 

Peary  averaged  20  miles  \day  for  25  'U«ess       ^^^^  ^  ^^^^^ 

parties  went  f-^nV^.t^,  SS  Vale  route,  distances  either  way 
Bellows  route  and  by  the  Bl^^^k  Vale  ro      .  ^^  ^^^  ^^ 

*It  will  be  noticed  that  he  is  comparing  Feary  wiu. 
ela  J  atdHeTime  with  what  he  cUuns  at  another. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed 


107 


of  50  miles  overland,  in  1  march.  This  after  the  sun  had  set 
for  the  winter." 

"In  February,  1899,  before  the  sun  returned,  Peary  (with 
both  feet  frozen  six  weeks  before)  sledged  from  Conger  to  Cafie 
D'Urville,  a  distance  of  over  200  miles,  in  11  marches,  in  an 
average  of  about  20  miles.  In  March  of  1902,  he  went  from 
Cape  Sabine  to  Port  Conger,  a  distance  of  250  to  300  miles, 
as  traveled  in  12  marches,  an  average  of  21  to  25  miles,  and 
later  covered  the  same  distance  again  in  11  marches,  an  average 
of  22  to  27  miles." 

"In  the  history  of  Polar  exploration,  no  one  has  had  so 
much  and  such  long-continued  training  in  ice  work  as  Peary; 
his  speed  is  the  result  of  long  years  of  practice,  resulting  in 
great  physical  endurance  and  skill  in  the  use  of  the  sledge." 

Signed  "  Gilbert  H.  Grosvenor.  " 

One  would  expect  in  a  communication  from  a  prominent 
member  of  the  Geographic  Society  something  that  would  in- 
spire confidence  in  the  methods  of  that  oi^anization,  and  be 
convincing  as  to  the  thoroughness  with  which  they  would  treat 
any  matter  intrusted  to  their  judgment,  especially  at  a  time 
when  they  were  asking  the  whole  civilized  world  to  accept  their 
conclusions  as  infallible,  and  when  it  is  said  that  even  to 
question  them  "is  to  stultify  the  national  honor."  Is  this 
communication,  entitled  to  that  great  respect  and  does  it  in 
fact  tend  to  enlighten  Congress,  or  to  mislead  it?  Whatever 
may  be  one's  opinion  of  this,  surely  Mr.  Grosvenor's  methods 
of  comparing  speeds  and  the  mode  of  reasoning  therefrom, 
which  evidently  are  the  methods  adopted  by  the  National 
Geographic  Society  in  solving  this  question  of  world  wide 
interest,  are  sufficient  to  discredit  the  entire  communication. 
It  will  be  examined  at  some  length  in  view  of  its  great  interest. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  not  one  of  the  comparisons  in  the 
letter  is  made  with  other  travelers  on  the  Polar  Sea,  but  all 
are  comparisons  of  Peary's  own  statements  made  at  different 
times.  The  letter  even  compares  one  end  of  the  same  journey 
with  the  other,  as  proof  that  both  are  true.  In  making  com- 
pari.sons  for  the  sole  purpo.se  of  arriving  at  the  truth  as  to  the 
rates  of  speed  made  by  Peaiy,  his  speed  should  be  compared 
with  that  of  other  ezpk>rers  not  with  his  own  assertions*  which 


I, 


■;i: 


^4 


( 11 


ill 


108  Has  the  North  PoU  Been  Discovered 

prove  nothing.  It  «  also  obviously  ewential  that  muches 
should  be  compared  only  with  marches,  distances  with  disUnces 
averages  with  averages,  geographical  miles  with  geographical 
miles,  statute  mUes  with  statute  miles,  and  conditions  as  far 
as  possible,  with  like  conditions.  This  is  axiomatic;  com- 
pari^ns  are  othen^ise  valueless.  To  mix  factors  mdiscrunmatc- 
ty  and  skillfully,  as  is  done  in  this  letter,  m  reaching  a  con- 
elusion  is  to  mislead  and  not  to  enlighten. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  order  to  lengthen  the  avwage 
miles  of  travel  from  Cape  Columbia  to  the  Bartlett  Cajnp  from 
9.1  miles  (the  actual  progress  per  day  to  that  pomt    to  12.8 
miles.  Mr.  Gr«svei.or  by  averaging  the  "marches,    only  counts 
the  days  on  which  Peary  could  advance  and  omits  the  da>8 
when  he  could  not  march.    That  is.  when  conditions  of  travel 
were  such  as  to  impede  or  interfere  with  progress  durmg  a 
march,  their  effects,  as  to  reducing  the  distances  made,  were 
considered,  but  when  delays  were  serious  enough  *«  P^^vent  » 
march,  they  are  omitted.    The  nuoiber  of  days  it  actuary 
took  to  reach  a  point  is  not  comited  or  mentioned.    The  object 
of  this  omission  is  obvious  when  it  is  remembered  that  when 
Peary  had  his  supporting  parties  with  him.  breakmg  tracks, 
building  igloos,  etc..  sometimes  for  five  marches  ahea^  he 
nevertheless  found  many  days  when  he  was  compelled  to 
succumb  to  the  inevitable  and  abandon  a  march,  the  umversal 
experience  in  polar  work.     When,  however,  no  white  man.  was 
with  him.  as  a  witness,  and  when  he  had  no  supportmg  parties 
to  assist  in  overcoming  obstacles,  he  reports  that  there  were  no 
more  obstacles  to  overcome!    He  says  he  marched  every  day. 
to  the  Pole  and  back  to  Cape  Columbia,  over  the  identical 
route  in  the  very  tracks  that  caused  such  physxcal  si^ermg  on 
the  way  to  the  BarUett  Camp,  and  alleges  that  he  did  not  miss 
a  single  march,  (the  only  instance  recorded  in  polar  history) 
traveling  at  an  average  gait  of  26.4  miles  per  day.     Mr.  Gros- 
venor's  method  of  analysis  makes  it  appear,  tiiat  Peary  with 
his  supporting  parties  actually  made  better  progress  tiian  9.1 
miles  per  day,  which  cannot  be  true,  as  has  been  shown  m 


Final  Proofa  on  Speed 


109 


previous  pages.    Mr.  Grosvenor  then  compares  these  averages 
of    marehes"  outward,  with  average  speed  "perday".  returning 
from  the  Pole  to  Cape  Columbia  (27.5).  including  all  the  days 
with  the  marches  as  Peary  claims  to  have  marehed  every  day 
after  leaving  Bartlett  Camp.*    In  this  skillful  but  misleading 
manner  of  treating  the  subject,  he  apparently  reduces  the  dis- 
crqwrncy  m  rates  of  speed  made  with  the  supporting  parties, 
and    those   made   without   them.    But   even    this   erroneous 
comparison  leaves  the  difference  still  over  100  per  cent     Mr 
Grosvenor  offers  no  explanation  to  Congress  for  this  discrepancy.' 
Mr.  Grosvenor  also  makes  the  statement  that  several  of 
the  marehes  were  20  miles.     There  were  just  two  marehes  of 
that  length  and  no  more.    One  of  those  was  claimed  to  have 
been  made  on  Bartletfs  last  day  when  it  is  alleged  that  he 
attempted  by  superhuman  effort  to  reach  the  88th  parallel 
before  turning  back,  with  his  light  outfit  breaking  track  ahead. 
The  other  comparisons  made  by  Grosvenor  are  stiU  more 
misleading.    Some  of  them  are  only  assertions  without  data 
and  of  course  they  cannot  be  checked.     He  says  anyone  who 
wishes  can  verify  h.s  figures,  but  he  does  not  indicate  how. 
Those  statements  that  are  accompanied  with    sufficient  data 

wn„ u'k!'"^*  ^r  ^"^  ^"^^^  "P'  b"*  «  ««P*'-'^te  review 
would  be  required  for  each  reference  to  unsnarl  the  wretched 
tangle  thoroughly.  He  uses  marehes  in  his  description  when 
apparently  convenient,  hours  when  more  convenient.  .Ml  of 
his  comparisons  are  statute  miles,  compared  with  geographical 
ndes;  and  without  a  single  exception  aU  the  speeT^Lpty 
I  sledge  trips  over  beaten  tracks  compared  with  Peary's  travels 
on  foot  over  polar  ,ce  floes  with  loaded  sledges.     These  facts 

XTi^'^f't  '*  ""'"^  "^  ^°"«^^^'  ^-  ««^«  ""t 

t^^CM       T"'  "^'^'^"^  wiU  be  made  to  seveT^ 

R^vi»;'^.J^^^^l  ^S''«^t]^AmericanG«.gr.pWc  Society  «ysiB  the 
p..t  be  measured  alone  by  t^.lL.ffi'^  achjevements  on  the  frozen  Ji.  should 
^vomble  to  rapid  XZi  Th^.S^  ?''!**1  ^'  ^^K  '^^'^  »»  condiUow  an 
^ow.  and  other  iiSpS;  J  t^^^ij*'''*  *J  *»**••  ^  "d  thn,u«h  deep 
ounted  to  make  an  itSSJs  "  **  ^  ™**  *»'  »"*«••  '^^'H  ^ 


no 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


:fl: 


<-l 


■i 

"J. 
i 
'■| 
'f  ■: 


*:■  I 


these  passages  as  a  sain}.le  of  them  all,  in  order  to  show  the 
absimiity  of  their  introduction,  and  to  point  out  that  there  can 
be  no  truth  to  offer,  else  resort  would  not  be  made  to  such 
subterfuges. 

In  the  sixth  paragraph,  Mr.  Grosvenor  refers  to  several 
trips  between  Cape  Columbia  and  the  Roosevelt,  Cape  Columbia 
to  Heckla,  Heckla  to  the  Roosevelt.  It  should  be  observed 
that  these  are  all  marches  eastward,  and  none  westward.  All 
are  statute  miles  with  empty  sleds,  on  beaten  tracks,  and  two  of 
these  marches  are  a  part  of  this  same  expedition  which  is  called 
in  question.  Not  one  of  them  a  proper  comparison.  It  is 
when  Peaiy  is  alone  that  he  goes  so  fast.  His  assertion  without 
proof  or  witness,  that  he  made  45  miles  in  a  march  between 
these  points  has  no  more  value  than  his  assertion  that  he  made 
58  miles  per  march  from  the  Pole  to  the  Bartlctt  Camp.  Com- 
paring Peaiy's  claims  in  one  place  with  his  claims  in  another, 
is  not  evidence  as  to  the  truth  of  either. 

Grosvenor  says  similar  speed  was  made  at  another  time. 
It  must  be  understood  that  during  the  months  when  the  Roose- 
velt was  imprisoned  in  the  ice,  excursions  were  freqv  -ntly  nuule 
for  exercise  and  training.  The  stores  for  the  polar  dash  were 
during  this  time  transported  west  from  the  Roosevelt  to  Cape  ' 
Columbia,  and  for  this  purpose  six  depots  15  miles  apart  were 
established.  The  empty  sledges  returned  east.  What  sport 
was  indulged  in  on  these  return  trips,  what  racing  contests  were 
enjoyed  with  fresh  dogs,  and  what  speed  was  reached  can  only 
be  imagined.  Mr.  Grosvenor  may  have  this  information,  but 
the  public  has  not. 

The  closing  paragraphs  of  his  letter,  all  refer  to  journeys 
made  by  Peary  on  other  expeditions.  There  is  not  one  com- 
parison with  anyone  else.  Only  one  of  them  will  be  examined, 
because  they  are  all  of  the  same  character  as  regards  the  basis 
of  comparison.  On  page  304  "Nearest  the  Pole,"*  Peaiy 
describes  one  of  these  trips  referred  to.  He  had  learned  of  the 
desertion  of  one  of  his  men  on  his  arrival  at  camp.    He  writes: 

*Iii  1906. 


Final  Proofs  on  Speed  u, 

empty  „ed«e.eiKht  pickX^^d  rE;.^^^^^^  '^•*'' 

take  my  man."    "He    waTLtnH     ♦    ^         t'''*'' ***  o^*'" 
leon.  and  after  receivL        i  *'    ^"^    ^»'»     Napo- 

me  to  the  ship.^..The  L^%  ""   *^''*"^   '^'-g   ^ 
W-inrfw-arrfwassxtynJutLlri?!     .       T  ^T  ^"'^'^  *«  '^^^ 
hy  me  along  thTLf^t     '  d t' '" * fj'*'^^^^ 
ninety  statute  mil^WnH  ''*'  ''"^''  "°'  '''^  '»»«" 

to  8.8  statute  i  ZZ^  rS.^^"""'^  ''"*"  ^^"^ 
8  picked  dogs  and  an  EskZ\i  '        -^  °"  anempty  aledwith 

after  a  deX.  is  Z^t^Zt^^'Ce^Z^:' '  ''^  '^"" 
ison  with  Peaiy's  "davs"  ov^  n^l     •  .        "" "  """P*^ 

»ledge,,  near  the  Pol     B^aL'^'""*-""'-"'  "!"•  ''-dxi 

"te  mile,  traveled    toelu^g  deL^Td"  p""  '^'^  ""■ 
Ihem  to  be  30  per  .ent    T,„l.    ..  "*    '^""''  "Umates 

expo*  the  wnrt;^L  jl^""  ""'"""'  ""  ~°"»^'™  •""Hj' 

near  the  Pole  wi(hTJi',S  "  ^^"^  ""^  '"^'='«' 
on  the  part  of  the  --^^^      ^  tSm  ,  rincere  endeavor 

a«.-erlal„  thetuth  of  a  IT""'.'"'"*^''  "  A""""  lo. 
"ondertheydidnotl'lS"^"-  """  "''''  "'^"    No 

™t  S™  e*C  vt'T""""""'  ■"  '•»^"'  ^l*™  <■- 
»■>  the  firal  iay  olt  f  J    .u  """P™"-'-    He  took  the  time 

'»  observation,  ^'^^^  IT     "k""  ^'^  ""''") '"''  ""k 
tUng^  on  that  r.oe1r^?^°^^'«-    ='  <«<'  »<>'  ""  t^ 

S-iety^attrttTrf^^h^i  *=««'-  of  the  G«,grapUo 

"PPe^ing  „  it  do«  „  *t    .""^  ■?  J^"^"'  <=l'^  and 

•Gn,„p  8.        ""^  •»  P^  of  a  apeech  in  Congrea  by  the 


112 


Hat  the  North  PoU  Been  Diteocered 


champion  of  Peary's  cause,  who  fathered  the  bill  for  Peary. 
indicates  that  it  conUins  all  the  evidence  that  can  be  offered. 
At  any  rate  it  gives  all  that  is  offered  in  defense  of  Peary  s 
miraculous  claims  of  speed  on  polar  ice.  which  claims  are  un- 
precedented in  enormity  in  the  annals  of  arctic  exploration. 
Fair  minded  men  everywhere  must  conclude  from  this,  that  it 
is  virtually  an  admission  and  a  confession  that  no  better  defense 
can  l)e  nnde.     The  author.  Mr.  Grosvenor.  will  appear  m 

another  role  farther  on.*  .         .         « »i. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  on  the  kaleidoscopic  surface  of  the 
Polar  Ocean,  there  are  miles  of  -omparalively  smooth  stretches 
over  which  a  traveler,  if  he  could  avail  himself  of  them  cotJd 
make  rapid  progress.  But  even  if  he  could  be  there,  and  the 
smooth  path  lay  in  the  right  direction,  he  could  not  expect  U» 
make  over  25  miles  of  latitude  in  10  hours.  Testimony  is 
unanimous  on  this  point.  One  could  not  reasonably  expect 
that  these  smooth  stretches  would  be  frequent  on  the  PoUr  Sea. 
and  be  contiguous  and  stationary.  Such  a  condition  is  not 
characteristic  of  the  Polar  Sea  in  spring  as  it  is  unanimously 
descriljcd  by  explorers,  including  P^jrry  h'trself  \v.  ul'  his  former 
writings.  It  is  not  even  his  description  of  the  conditions  on 
the  present  expedition  in  Chapter  XXI.  t  No  one,  therefore, 
who  accepts  any  available  criterion  can  truthfully  say  that  he 
believes  that  Peary  found  the  conditions,  and  that  he  made  the 
speed  which  in  one  part  of  his  stoiy  he  claims  he  did  find  and 
did  make.  It  is  most  important  for  Peary  to  show  how  it  was 
possible  to  so  far  exceed  all  former  arctic  travelers  as  regards 
speed  and  distance.  Instead  of  attempting  to  supply  this 
very  essential  information,  he  skips  it  as  with  a  wave  of  a  wand. 
Uke  a  magician,  seemingly  confident  that  amidst  the  skillful 
digressions  it  will  be  overlooked  by  the  reader. 

♦I  do  not  consider  the  pretense  of  evidence  placed  in  the  '«»'^^y*^' 
Englebright  M  worthy  of  mention.  It  is  an  attemoted  ^™P«"»^'"^  P"«^S[ 
j^^%  by  Poary  arros.,  the  polar  «a.  with  heavily  l<«ded  clumsy  sWgea.  with 
"dog  races"  in  Alaska  with  picked  ^og*.  empty  sledges,  over  beaten  traciw 
for  short  distances. 

]North'Pole. 


Final  Proof  a  on  Speed  nj 

AU  the  evidence  that  I  care  to  offer  regaidina  Pewv'. 
da.m.  for  .peed  h«  now  been  presented,  pi^.  o^  t^IL 
menta  have  been  ,hown  to  conflict,  compa^/^^  oU^ 
polar  explorer,  have  been  made,  chart,  CTupoT  pJ^'J^ 

panions  have  been  analyzed      It  mAv  nnf  k-  -^     j      V 

«-u,  o„  the  ^.  „,  «,^„j;  :T«r  .t'^i^i^r:; 

w,Uiout  recording  .t  le„t  „„,  v.r,io„  of  .h.lT  Mifv^ 
8»mmg  inem.     What  this  analysu  of  apeed  Dreaentu  i«  P...„>. 

™  th.  poUr  i„  .t  87.  47'  north  uSITl^^  Z" 

r„oMr-LT^rLS?rS 

crushing  back  and  compacting  thence  floi^tt.^^^  ^.'^  °' 
similar  to  those  that  k^t  ♦!,:  ""ti   .  The  cuttmg  bUsts 

1906  ceased  T^nl^'^'^htn^  '"..""^P  -  "^^  day-  m 

other  conditionstSd  wei*  afwr^^'  *"T*^  *^^*^<*«*  ^^^^^ 

the  line  of  demarTatir:n1ZrsL"'^7^,l^'«  ^  "" 

.  which  had  been  driven  south  18  ^    u    ^  ^^^-    ^*  ^ 

caused  no  obstrucfaW  Z  ^.^  ^^  '^^  «*'^  fortunately 

opened  any  wft^t^L'to^L^l^elf  ^'  ^k\^^  ^' 
wrecked  and  patchedZlv  T^\  J      '^***«**  ''**'*'^  ^  »>«« 

[cause  trouble.    No  one  Ttl^T^,^^  ^'^'  "*^"  "S*^  *« 

preceded  Peary  ever^tJ!     ***'''«  ^  *^'  P«^  «Plorer8  who 

^eary  ever  dwcovered  anything  that  in  the  dightert 


114 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


1 1 "  t 


degree  indicated  such  an  astounding  number  of  coincidences  as 
centered  around  All  Fools'  Day,  1909.  This  is  only  candid 
recognition  of  facts  which  are  obvious  when  the  tale  is  ex- 
amined. The  claims,  the  conditions,  the  speed,  the  accomplish- 
ments, are  absolutely  impossible.  The  story  of  speed  must  be 
declared  untrue.  If  anyone  could  be  willing  to  admit  that  he 
believes  these  representations  of  Peary's,  what  could  he  say 
against  the  comparatively  modest  claims  of  Cook? 

The  fact  being  known  from  this  analysis  of  si)eed  only, 
that  the  whole  story  is  a  creation,  and  that  the  alleged  con- 
ditions and  marches  are  fabrications  furnishes  a  positive  clue 
early  in  this  review,  that  is  a  direct  guide  to  other  facts  equally 
significant.  If  these  marches  were  never  made,  it  follows  as 
a  self-evident  truth,  that  all  descriptions  of  the  alleged  visit 
to  the  Pole  are  equally  concoctions  which  must  be  detected 
and  exposed. 

Setting  aside  all  considerations  of  speed,  therefore,  we  shall, 
before  passing  final  judgment  upon  Peary's  claims,  investigate 
from  several  different  angles  his  statements  of  his  alleged  trip 
to  the  Pole. 


i 


CHAPTER  IV 


^"V 


^  ^y  DISCREDITS  HIS  OWN  STORY 

If  the  length  of  marches  and  rates  of  speed  aUeged  to  have 
been  made  durmg  Peaiy's  absence  from  the  a^tlett  ?W  » 
.^possible,  then  it  follows  that  he  did  not  go  tot'^tif  ^^^ 
There  are,  m  f^t.  many  indications  that  Peaiy  never^3 
to  go  U.e^  His  dismissal  of  aU  his  whitel^^,:^^^^ 
lack  of  efficient  equipment  and  organization  Ete  h  h! 
doesnotteUtheitemsofhissledgelc^;^^^^^^ 

rsSell"!!:'"*?*'^"^-  .I''-videntthatheca;n^mS 
useless  luggage,  and  many  luxuries  unnecessary  for  one  ^ 
deavormg  to  succeed  in  a  superhuman  s^^  IZ  ZtT 
neglected  to  cany  such  essentials  as  a  cS^  ^  ^tic^^ 

Se^"?  ^^  r"^'  '^PP^*^  ^-  thTTup^X^^ 
He  contends  that  the  samples  of  earth  said  to  haTbe^b^M 

value  for  «,«*  ^""^ly.  u  uiey  had  been  considered  of  any 

value  for  that  purpose,  they  would  have  been  aenfkc^l  k 

North P^on  JpS£^  °°  """'«»'  "'  ""^  «« 

lis 


r;.i 


116 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discocered 


I    Mfc 


weights  of  dogs,  sleds,  and  cargoes;  he  named  each  dog,  and  as 
each  one  died  or  was  killed  it  was  recorded  by  name.  Amund- 
sen and  Scott  also  had  a  completely  organized  busiress  ^stem, 
as  all  other  arctic  or  antarctic  explorers  have  had.  Peary  does 
not  even  tell  whether  or  not  he  had  a  sextant  or  a  compass. 
Possibly  one  of  the  reasons  why  Peary  does  not  give  an  in- 
ventory of  his  loads  is  innocently  divulged  by  Henson,  who  says 
that  one  of  the  sleds  was  fur-lined  and  that  Peary  rode  on  it 
during  the  entire  journey.  Every  picture  that  Henson  ex- 
hibited in  his  lectures  showed  Peary  seated  on  this  fur-lined  sled, 
the  only  item  of  the  caigo. 

Peaiy  had  about  the  clumsiest  sleds  that  could  be  devised. 
They  were  made  by  Henson  of  solid  planks,  like  Mexican  cart 
wheels.  No  one  in  civilization  doing  any  kind  of  snow  work 
would  think  of  using  such  a  crude  device  even  temporarily. 
Any  person  in  a  logging  camp  where  liunber  is  abundant  would 
be  considered  incompetent  who  would  make  Mac  of  one  of  the 
"Peary"  sledges,  yet  Peary's  dogs  were  compelled  to  haul  those 
immense  w  ights  of  dead  and  worse  than  useless  lumber. 
Borup  says  the  sleds  went  to  pieces  the  first  day  out,  and  some 
had  to  be  condemned  immediately,  to  repair  others. 

Cook's  sledges  and  those  of  similar  construction  used  by 
Nansen,  Shackleton,  Scott  and  Amundsen,  are  evidence  enough 
in  themselves  that  these  explorers  intended  to  get  somewhere 
with  them.  Amundsen  says  his  sledges  would  stand  any  kind 
of  usage;  he  mentions  no  repairing  on  his  trip.  Amimdsen's 
sledges  weighed  6S  lbs.,  and  carried  loads  of  880  lbs.  Peary's 
sledges  weighed  by  estinwte  85  to  95  lbs.,  and  carried  loads  ol 
about  500  lbs.,  •but  were  daily  wrecked.  The  clumsy  im- 
provised contraptions  used  by  Pearyt  and  named  after  him  to 
give  them  some  credit,  sledges  which  tumbled  to  pieces  befwe 
they  had  gone  4  miles,  sledges  which  Henson  says  were  daily 
thereafter  being  patched  and  condemned,  are  quite  conclusive 
evidence  that  the  user  of  them  never  intended  to  go  very  far 

*A  Tenderfoot  with  Peary,  Page  144. 
tShown  in  North  PoU,  Page  IftS. 


Peary  Diacredits  His  Otvn  Story 


117 

from  land.    He  could  not  have  attained  his  goal  so  hampered 
No  prudent  man  would  risk  it.  "perea. 

When  one  reads  Amundsen's  book,  and  notes  his  wonderful 
orgamz,-  on  the  thoroughness  of  his  preparations,  and  how  he 
mZ^  t«h*ve  foreseen  eveiy  contingency,  one  concludes  even 
before  he  started  south  that  no  matter  what  natural  obstruc- 
tions he  met  unless  some  miavoidable  a<=cident  took  his  life 
that  he  would  reach  the  Pole.  It  was  a  victory  hetore  he  hS 
marched  a  male,   because   it  was  a  victoiy  oT  human  mind 

SisonT    '^  '  """""'"  ""^^  ""  "^^"^  ™^''^«'  *«  *«y  intelligent 

Teir  the"  1    '^  r"""*'  '^''  '^^  ^•"P-^--^  -«ttod«  of 
.ftlL,  ?^  unsystematic  organization   that   he  i„. 

stituted.  are  proof  of  its  fraudulent  purpose 

SvsJ^n  "^"i  1'*"^'  ^"'  ^"  *"^*^  i«'  that  in  the  "Peary 
System     of  ice  sledging,  no  provision  whatever  was  made^^ 

u'TIo  ar  t'"*^  of  open  water  which  ai.  well  known^fficl 
ties  of  Polar  Sea  travel.  After  Peaiy  had  finished  his  descrintion 
of  ice  conditions  between  land  and  the  Pole,  he  writes  Sows 
m  the  chapter  on  "Arctic  Ice  Sledging:  "* 

feacure?oUrA"Tic'?4'"#ir;o^^^^^^        "^  "«*  *^«  -«-' 

^^s^^.width^t.ssirir^jt;/^^^^^^^ 

tATor/A  Poe.  P«ge  197.      ' 


.li 


118 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


klH 


<r 


!'<( 


s , ,- 


■If  I 
\\    I 

'  bi  if 


ft 


the  right  or  the  left,  with  the  idea  of  finding  some  place  where  the 
opposite  edges  of  the  ice  are  near  enough  together  so  that  our 
long  sledges  can  be  bridged  across.  Or,  if  there  are  indications 
that  the  lead  is  closing,  the  traveler  can  wait  until  the  ice  comes 
quite  together.  If  it  is  very  cold,  one  may  wait  until  the  ice 
has  formed  thick  enough  to  bear  the  loaded  sledges  going  at 
full  speed.  Or  one  jiay  search  for  a  cake  of  ice  or  hack  out  a 
cake  with  pickaxes,  which  can  be  used  as  a  ferryboat  on  which 
to  transport  the  sledges  and  teams  across. " 
Further  on  he  describes  an  "ice  cake  ferry"  as  follows:* 

"Getting  the  last  sledge  over  caused  a  delay  of  a  few  hours, 
as  we  had  to  cut  an  ice  raft  with  pickaxes  to  ferry  the  sledge, 
dogs,  and  Eskimo  driver  across.  This  impromptu  ferryboat 
was  cut  on  our  side  and  was  moved  across  the  lead  by  means  of 
two  coils  of  rope  fastened  together  and  stretching  from  side  to 
side.  When  the  cake  was  ready,  two  of  my  Eskimos  got  on  it, 
we  threw  the  line  across  to  the  Eskimo  on  the  other  side,  the 
Eskimos  on  the  ice  raft  took  hold  of  the  rope,  the  Eskimos  on 
either  shore  held  the  ends,  and  the  raft  was  pulled  over.  Then 
the  dogs  and  sledge  and  the  three  Eskimos  took  their  place  on 
the  ice  cake,  and  we  hauled  them  over  to  our  side. " 
These  descriptions  are  interesting,  but  how  did  the  Eskimos  get 
on  the  other  side  to  catch  the  rope?  The  processes  seem  quite 
ingenious  and  eflfective,  but  not  one  suggestion  is  made  of  how  to 
cross  an  open  lead  too  wide  to  jump  across.  The  fact  is  that  he 
could  not  have  crossed  his  expedition  over  such  an  obstruction, 
because  the  "Peary  System"  did  not  include  any  method. 
He  could  go  as  far  as  solid  ice  was  found,  but  no  farther.  He 
made  no  provision  for  going  any  farther.  This  omission 
naturally  indicates  that  he  never  intended  going  any  farther. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  among  the  "various  ways  of  cross- 
ing" no  mention  is  made  of  a  boat,  an  article  which  every 
other  traveler  on  the  Polar  Sea  has  considered  an  essential  part 
of  his  equipment.  In  fact  neither  Nansen  nor  Cook  could  have 
returned  without  one.  A  boat  would  seem  to  be  the  first 
method  to  be  considered  for  crossing  open  water.  Even  savages 
use  boats,  yet  such  a  conveyance  is  omitted  in  Peary's  sugges- 
tions of  "various  ways  of  crossing  a  lead,"  He  says  that  he 
*Psge2A0. 


•11(1 


Peary  Discredits  His  Qvm  Story  ng 

relied  upon  rafting  across  the  various  open  water  leads  on  cakes 
of  ice.     But  he  makes  no  detailed  description  of  how  this  method 
of  water  transportation  is  possible.     Ferrying  would  be  im- 
practicable.   One  would  first  need  to  find  a  cake  of  ir«  of  suitable 
size  and  shape  to  accommodate  at  least  a  part  of  the  expedition. 
This  cake  should  be  floating  unmoved  at  the  near  bank  of  the 
stream,  and  when  loaded  start  on  its  journey  and  be  propeUed 
across  with  a  fair  wind.     But  neither  Peary.  Borup,  Bartiett, 
nor  McMillan  mention  carrying  a  paddle  or  a  sail.    To  travel 
without  either  of  these  propeUing  devices  would  seem  like  re- 
lying on  some  prehistoric  way  of  navigation.     Even  then,  if 
Peary  should  be  confronted  with  the  terrific  easterly  current  in 
the  open  leads  as  Borup  describes  it,  where  a  cake  of  ice  is  now 
m  sight,  but  in  fifteen  minutes  later  has  disappeared  to  the 
eastward,  be  would  be  hopelessly  lost.     Some  detailed  explana- 
tion of  how  such  phenomena  are  to  be  overcome  must  be  given 
before  one  can  understand  the  logic  of  an  explorer  who  would 
attempt  to  make  northing  over  the  Polar  Sea  without  some  kind 
of  boat. 

With  such  abundant  evidence  before  us  we  could  well 
afford  to  rest  our  case,  but  the  force  of  the  facts  which  have 
ahrady  been  submitted  is  in  no  way  .lisparaged  by  presenting 
other  and  even  more  convincing  reasons  for  discrediting  Peaiy's 
stoiy.  There  are  ti-aces  of  a  studied  plan  running  through  his 
narrative,  which  shall  leave  no  positive  data  behind  that  can 
ever  be  checked  against  him. 

As  far  north  as  the  Bartiett  Camp,  Peary's  story  is  in  no 
way  miusual.  but  immediately  after  Peary  sets  out  for  the  Pole. 
T.-.  ^"'y  Benson  and  four  Eskimos  as  witnesses,  his  whole 
attitude  changes.  His  speed  increases,  conditions  are  ideal,  and 
there  IS  even  an  impression  of  subtie  superfidality  in  his  style 
which  18  soon  mtensified  into  actual  suspicion  as  tiie  tale  unfolds. 
One  readmg  tiiis  part  of  Peaiy's  stoiy  can  hardly  restnun  the 
thought,  that  when  Peary  had  reached  tiie  alleged  Bartiett 
Camp  he  purposely  planned  to  be  rid  of  Bartiett.  that  tiie  rtoiy 
thereafter  might  be  shaped  witiiout  interference,  and  mi^ 


1      ♦ 

1'        * 


'if   ■ 


i 


120 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacocered 


depend  upon  the  memory  of  no  one  but  himself.  The  fact  that 
the  greatest  speed  claimed  by  Peary  was  all  made  beyond  the 
point  where  Bartlett  turned  back,  strengthens  this  opinion. 
Nowhere  in  Peary's  published  reports  is  there  one  positive 
record  made  during  these  8  days  that  could  be  checked  as 
evidence. 

Suspicion  grew  into  certainty  when  further  examination 
brought  to  Ught  the  fact  that  Peary,  standing  alone  at  87"  47' 
outlined  a  new  program  for  himself  in  which  he  prophesied  the 
discovery  of  the  North  Pole,  exactly  as  it  later  occurred.  *He 
says  at  Bartlett  Camp  that  he  hopes  and  expects  to  reach 
the  Pole  in  five  marches  and  to  arrive  in  time  for  "noon" 
obiwrvations.  Before  him  lay  the  untrodden  expanse  of  Arctic 
Sea  183  miles  to  the  North  Pole.  What  would  be  encountered, 
of  course,  he  could  not  know.  Over  that  great  area  of  pre- 
sumably frozen  wilderness,  no  human  being  had  ever  passed. 
AU  things  considered,  Peary's  vision  is  unequalled  in  exactness 
or  in  mightiness  of  grasp  since  the  ancient  sages,  for  according 
to  his  own  story  his  trip  took  place  exactly  as  he  outlined  it. 
Storms  could  have  hindered  his  progress,  but  they  didn't;  the 
traveling  was  better  on  the  first  day  than  ever  before,  and  im- 
proved all  the  way  to  the  Pole;  the  sledges  did  not  break;  the 
dogs  did  not  sicken  or  die;  he  did  not  encoimter  open  leads; 
pressure  ridges  were  easy  negotiations.  He  presumes  to  have 
foreseen  that  in  five  marches  (each  imparalleled  in  length  in 
arctic  history)  he  coidd  cover  the  distance  to  the  Pole  and  arrive 
just  before  noon  in  time  for  an  immediate  observation.  What 
he  did  from  that  day  forth,  where  he  went,  the  direction  he 
took,  no  living  man  can  know. 

It  was  not  the  smooth  ice  in  sight  that  prompted  this  visi<»i 
for  he  saysf  of  the  conditions  at  that  camp,  (87°  47'):  "The 
floes  were  large  and  old,  hard  and  clear,  and  were  surrounded 
by  pressure  ridges  some  of  which  were  almost  stupendous." 
Even  if  the  surface  outlook  had  been  favorable  as  far  as  he 

"Outlooi   "Vsi^.  18,  1909.    Page  101. 
^Ouilooh      pt.  18,  1909,  Page  99. 


Peary  Diaereditt  His  Own  Story  121 

could  have  seen,  it  would  not  have  been  conclusive  with  him 
because  at  the  camp  where  Marvin  turned  back  he  writes* 
"The  condition  at  tliis  camp  and  the  apparently  unbrokwi 
expanse  of  fairly  level  ice  in  eveiy  direction  reminds  me  of 
Cagni  s  description  of  his  farthest  north,  but  I  was  not  deceived 
by  tue  apparenUy  favorable  ouUook.  for  available  conditions 
neter  continue  for  any  dutance  fyr  any  length  o/Hme  in  the  Arctic. " 
He  did  make  this  prophecy,  however,  and  it  assists  us  in  the 
solution  of  other  problems  not  otherwise  easily  disentangled 

To  forecast  a  definite  result  in  a  story  of  this  kind,  and  have 
the  prediction  proven  true,  entails  much  more  planning  than 
would  at  first  appear.    It  includes  the  consideration  of  animal 
ajid  human  endurance,  of  traveling  conditions,  as  well  as  of 
speed,  wither  and  time.    Peaiy  mentions  only  the  time  the 
try  would  consume,  but  he  could  not  have  calculated  the  time 
without  considermg  the  other  elements  involved.    He  predicted 
weather  and  ice  conditions  with  as  accurate  a  vision  as  he  did 
tune.    He  knew  the  probable  ice  conditions  in  polar  seas  he 
had  spent  twenty-three  years  of  his  life  battling  with  them,  'and 
had  published  many  photogmphs;  he  was  familiar  with  the 
wnUngs  of  his  predecessors,  and  had  seen  their  pfctures  of  poUr 
conditions.     He  had  just  finished  describmg  in  his  diaiy^ 
cations  he  had  encountered  from  Cape  Columbia^  ^ 
BarUett  Camp  where  he  then  was.    He  knew  and  kter  prove, 
that  he  knew,  that  no  one  could  go  from  87»  47'  to  the  NorS 
Pole  m  five  days  with  such  ice  conditions  as  his  party  had  so  far 

prophecy  and  reach  the  Pole  in  five  days.  He  must,  therefore 
have  known  what  the  actual  conditions  ahead  w^tTr^' 

S  H.  ":^'  ""'^P  "  '"«  ""^^  unparaUelS  t 
^'  ^/'""t  TTt^^  "^^  ^'  *^  ^^^'  ^ he  speaks 
h^^'th^u.lT"^'  \^'^''  ~"^^*^^  «"  "^  ^P'  ^^n 

^c^^r.,tttoV^^  '^^^^  "^  """^"^  ^-^  *« 

•oi:r.fs!pf  r^:"p^^^^  ^^^^  ^^ «-« -  -  the  best 


* 


11 


182 


l'^; 


ri  1:^:1 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


,   ! 


sinco  leaving  land;"  the  second  day,  after  a  little  delay  "same 
as  day  before;"  the  third  "still  better;"  the  fourth  day  "i-uch 
better  than  any  previous  day,"  because  a  lead  (which  a  ctic 
writers  including  Henson,  Bartlett  and  Peary  himself  say  runs 
eagt  and  west  in  that  region)  happened  on  this  day  to  run  north 
and  south,  making  a  regular  boulevard  directly  towards  the 
Pole.  The  next  morning  at  ten  he  is  within  three  miles  of  the 
North  Pole.  This  ends  the  journey,  exactly  to  the  hour,  as 
predicted.    How  was  it  done? 

The  enormous  physical  and  mental  strain  incident  to  such 
rapid  travel  as  is  related  in  the  story,  taking  advantage,  as  he 
must,   and  of  course,   did,   of  such    wonderfully    favorable 
conditions    practicaUy     used    him    up   at    the   end   of   the 
4th  march.    He  coUapsed  at  the  end  of  the  5th  march  apparent- 
ly right  m  his  tracks,  absolutely  exhausted  with  jaded  nerves, 
and  muscles  entirely  expended.    Although  the  Pole  was  only 
three  miles  ahead,  he  says:*    "I  was  too  weaiy  to  take  the  last 
few  steps. "    It  would  seem  impossible  for  any  one  to  make  the 
situation  as  he  wished  it  to  appear,  at  the  end  of  that  Jast 
march,  clearer  than  he  does.    He  shows  plainly  enough  chat 
dog  muscles  and  human  endurance  had  propeUed  the  little 
expedition  practicaUy  the  last  mile  that  it  could  go,  even  under 
Uiose  perfect  ti^veling  conditions.    It  foUows  then,  that  if 
Peary  knew  when  at  the  Bartlett  Camr,.  as  he  intimates  he  did- 
that  he  would  reach  the  Pole  in  five  marches;  and  knowing  ai 
he  must  have  known  what  could  be  done  under  varying  con- 
ditions,  with  such  an  expedition,  he  must  have  assumed  to  have 
known  the  conditions  themselves,  as  one  is  a  complement  of  the 
otters.    With  less  nerve,  less  energy,  less  endurance,  dogs  or 
sledges  m  poorer  condition,  the  trip  could  not  have  been  made 
m  five  marches.    Neither  could  it  have  been  made  in  five  days, 
with  that  eiq^dition  if  conditions  had  been  less  favowSe. 
Peaiy  needed  all  circumstances  combined  into  one  favorable 
whole  to  succeed.    The  stoiy  would  have  been  incongruous 
•i  Tl  ^"  **  P^****^-    ^^*  ^^«  ^^  ««i  the  conditions 


Peary  Diacredits  His  Ovm  Story 


193 


go  togetl  er.  Therefore.  Peary  must  have  measured  all  things 
in  his  vision.  He  included  them  aU  in  this  mighty  mental 
ferasp. 

The  fact  that  such  conditions  were  so  different  from  any- 
thmg  he  had  experienced  from  land  to  the  Bartlett  Camp   or 
from  anythmg  in  his  twenty-three  years'  previous  experience, 
or  m  alJ  history,  and  were  withal  alleged  to  have  been  so  clearly 
foreseen,  certainly  stamps  this  part  of  the  narrative  as  having 
been  completely  prearranged  into  a  suitable  story,  or  else  marks 
Peary  as  a  prodigy.    In  five  days'  time  he  proves  his  prophecy 
true,  and  writes  out  all  the  facts  and  events  just  as  he  says  they 
afterwards  occurred.    Anyone  can  see  that  the  prophecy  and 
Its  fulfillment  dovetail  perfectly  into  each  other.     Peary's  mind 
is  obviously  cast  in  a  Shakesperian  mould.     His  writings  require 
re-readmg,   reading  l^etween    the   lines,    studying,   analyzing, 
before  one  can  fathom  the  depth  of  his  thought  or  realize  the 
full  scope  of  his  intellect. 

The  prophecy  formulated  at  Bartlett  Camp  is  but  a  con- 
eluding  paragraph,  so  to  sj^eak  in  a  major  prophecy.  In  order 
to  get  a  proper  view  of  the  situation,  and  to  realize  the  full 

JJ^'^r'*  fio^'''^'''  y^''*''':  """^  •""'*  «**  ^"^^  '"  *^«  ««««1  to  Camp 
XNo.  7,  (82  miles  from  hmd)  where  McMillan  and  Dr.  Goodsell 

turned  ba..k     It  w^  as  far  back  as  this  camp  at  least,  that 

n^^Z  "";   "^f^\  ^"'  P'^"""^  ^''  ^"™»^  arrangement  of 
mart^hes  to  the  Pole.    Here  is  his  program:* 

«r»,i    Vl   *S^  ?°^  **'  '*"*  march,  on  the  evening  of  the  10th  + 

SThp^I     !2^"  ""^  "y  P^'y-  Bartlett,  Marvin,  Borup 
fmivK  fT'  *^^  P^e^^^  wfcch  I  should  endeavor  to  foE 
fmm  that  t.nie  on.     At  the  end  of  the  next  marcA  (which  woSd 

tin  T^^"'  ^""Z  ^'^^"^  %M"'«"  ^J  the  doctor  tZed 
•pige?4,    ^  '^''^  ^^'^  *^^  ^'^'^''''  twenty  d?gt 

tCamp  l«." 

To  full/  r^^Pe^rJ!^±lL^AZ''X  ^^^"rtiett  at  M.  (see  chart  No.  S) 
one  should  read  Pwv'rteSn?  f^^-  *^  P"**™"  ^  «>  afterthought 
on  thui  date  (WthuL^s  strK  Washington  and  the  copy  of  this  dX 
here  in  the  teil  wlira^ifp^ph^"  '"''  *''""«''*  P*'*"-*  ^  "J-t^^ 


lU 


Baa  ike  North  Pole  Been  Diectxered 


and  one  sledge  leaving  the  main  party  twelve  men,  ten  sledgeii, 
and  eighbr  dogs.    Five  marches  farther  on   Marvin  would 
return  with  two  Eskimos,  twenty  dogs  and  one  sledge,  leaving 
the  main  party  with  nine  men,  seven  sledges  and  sixty  dogs. 
Five  marches  farther  on  Bartlett  would  return  with  two  Eskimos, 
twenty  dogs,  and  one  sledge,  leaving  the  main  party,  six  men, 
forty  dogs,  and  five  sledges.*      I  hoped  that  with  good  weather, 
and  the  ice  no  worse  than  that  which  we  had  already  en- 
countered, Borup  might  get  beyond  85»,  Marvin  beyond  86' 
and  Bartlett  beyond  87».     At  the  end  of  -iach    five-march 
section  I  should  send  back  the  poorest  dogs,  the  least  effective 
Eskimos,  and  the  worst  damaged  sledges.     As  will  appear 
this  program  was  carried  out  loithout  a  hitch,  and  the  farthest  of 
each  division  was  even  better  than  I  had  hoped.    At  this  camp 
the  supplies,  equipment  and  personal  gear  of  Borup  and  his 
Eskimos  were  left  for  them  to  pick  up  on  their  way  home,  thus 
avoiding  the  transportation  of  some  two  hundred  and  fifty 
pounds  out  and  back  over  the  next  march. " 
This  paragraph  is  not  a  complete  outline  of  his  "program," 
8U<      "i  the  handiwork  of  genius.     It  is  but  four-fifths  of  the 
pi^ijram,"  an  outline  to  the  Bartlett  Camp  only.    To  make 
the  "program"  complete  in  one  announcement,  he  should  have 
added  what  he  did  add  later,  that  from  Bartlett  Camp  onward 
with  Henson  and  four  Eskimos,  Peary  hoped  to  make  the  last 
five  marches  himself  and  reach  the  Pole  April  6,  just  before 
"noon."    This  would  make  a  complete  program  from  Camp 
No.  7  to  Camp  No.  27  (Camp  Jessup). 

This  method  of  announcing  the  program  in  installments, 
and  digressing  into  faulty  mathematics  as  to  dogs,  sledges, 
and  camps,  diverts  the  attention  so  that  when  the  reader  reaches 
the  chapter  with  the  second  installment,  the  connection  is  so 
obscured,  that  it  is  apt  to  pass  unnoticed.  But  with  the  whole 
program  now  before  us  we  can  observe  the  consummate  skill 
with  which  Peary  divides  up  the  Polar  Sea  in  true  Caesarian 
style.  He  could  not  well  have  made  these  quinary  divisions 
before  he  reached  Camp  No.  7  where  McMillan  and  Dr.  Good- 
sell   turned  back  withoi;*   ha\nng  one  additional  supporting 

•The  necessity  for  this  jumbled  arithmetical  explamitioii  is  rot  under- 
stood. It  checks  up  with  nothing. 


Peary  DiacrediU  His  Own  Story  wa 

party.    He  commences,  therefore,  at  Camp  7.  which  for  con- 
venience  will   Ih^  called   the    McMillan    Camp.    There  are 
therefore.  20  camp.,  i^yond  the  McMillan  Camp.     There  ar^ 
four  sledffinK  parties  left,  viz.,  Borup,  Marvin.  Bartlett  and 
i'eary.     If  each  party  makes  five  marches,  and  each  march  ia 
the  correct  numl,er  of  miles  for  the  proper  divisions.  Peaiy 
would  reach  Camp  Jessup  at  the  end  of  the  last  march  on  April 
6,   before     noon."    It   was  accomplished  with  a  surprising 
exactitude,  practically  to  the  hour,  and  covered  the  exact 
number  of  miles.     Prophesying  correctly   the  conditions  of 
the  last  five  marches  (from  Bartlett  Camp  to  Camp  Jessup) 
was  «"^««y  t"-;k  «>n'Pared  with  the  rcal ,  x>phecy  of  «0  marches 
from  the   McM.llan   Camp   to  Camp  Jessup.     Possibly  the 
program     was  planned  at  Cai^e  Columbia.     But  Peaiy  did 
not  outlme  .t  to  the  remaining  memJ^ers  of  his  party  untU  the 
evenmg  of  the  19th  at  Camp  12. 

It  does  not  seem  to  have  bothered  Peary  in  the  least,  to 
have  clearly  foreseen  (as  he  must)  the  length  of  each  of  these 
20  marches  which  varied  from  6  to  36  miles  of  northing,  or  to 
have  foreseen  the  lengths  of  the  four  quinaiy  divisions  which 
no"  ";  'tu*^  '^  •"''"  ""'  "«^*'^^«-    TWs  predictio;  l^ks 

fonnula,  wh.ch  .s  that  he  hoped  that  "Borup  might  get  beyL 
85  .  Marvm  beyond  86°.  and  BarUett  beyond  87»  "  The 
impression  thus  created  is  that  the  quinaiy  districts  would  be 
comparatively  uniform  in  length  and  would  each  c^vlr  about 

W^tl  Tf.  ""  "'^'^^^'^  "^^  ^~™  «  t«  36  miles,  and  in  the 
Twould         r"f '^  ^'^^^t^  '--  54  to  134  miles  of  latitude  • 

San^  diL^       1  .^  ^"'"  ^"Pi^rting  parties  divide  the 

rir„f  1 1    .!rV-^'  *r  ^  '^'  '^*  '^'  «"^  -^  the  last 
march,  of  the  last  district  after  a  prcbabJe  journey  of  over  500 

'Diagrams. 


^11! 


IM 


Heu  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


■   (I 


;1 1     « 


h 


miles  of  sled^ng,  that  the  lost  mile  of  this  deviating  course 
would  exactlj  xhaust  the  last  paKicle  of  8tren>?th,  and  that  an 
error  of  even  one  mile  in  the  calculation  of  distance  from  Camp 
7  to  Camp  27,  or  a  small  error  in  estimating  physical  strength 
would  have  made  a  "hitch"  in  the  "program"  and  a  failure 
of  the  prediction. 

It  is  a  simple  clerical  matter  for  the  analyzer  sitting  m  a 
comfortable  oflSce  and  having  Diagram  3  and  Peary's  narrative 
before  him.  to  note  the  remarkable  result  said  to  have  been 
accomplished  by  the  "Peary  System."  It  is  perhaps  hard  for 
such  an  analyzer  to  give  full  credit  to  the  towering  genius  of 
one  who,  standing  upon  the  ice  on  March  19,  1909  at  Camp  14 
"while  the  Eskimos  were  building  their  igloos"  could  outline  to 
his  comrades  such  a  comprehensive  program.  Nevertheless, 
we  must  deal  in  facts.  When  Peary  was  at  Camp  7  where 
McMillan  turned  back  and  was  confronted  with  the  problem  of 
reaching  the  North  Pole,  he  had  left  the  glacial  fringe,  had 
crossed  the  big  lead,  and  was  fairly  out  on  the  Polar  Sea. 
The  two  known  factors  in  the  problem  were,  that  he  had  four 
sledging  parties  at  his  disposal,  and  a  distance  in  a  straight 
line  of  S82  miles  of  imknown  conditions  between  him  and  his 
destination.  All  else  was  unknown,  and  would  be  unknown  at 
any  time,  to  any  one  placed  in  like  position. 

If  he  had  a  smcere  purpose  to  attempt  to  reach  the  North 
Pole  he  would,  of  course,  adopt  a  system  of  procedure  based  on 
his  long  experience.  But  could  any  intellect,  know  the  con- 
ditions that  were  to  be  met  with  on  that  joamey  into  the  un- 
known; the  actual  miles  net;essary  to  travel;  the  time  required, 
the  strength  needed?  Could  any  power  save  omnipotence, 
arrange  definite  or  approximately  definite  stages  for  that 
journey?  If  there  is  any  truth  in  Peary's  narrative,  if  there 
is  any  '>-'e  impression  that  he  wishes  to  make  more  than  another, 
i!;  is  t  c  every  efifort  was  made,  and  every  mile  was  covered 
in  every  march  that  was  possible  under  the  phenomen^ly 
favorable  conditions  which  he  says  he  foimd. 

Borup's  five  marches  advanced  the  expedition  54  miles  of 


Peary  Discredit*  His  Oum  Story  iftj 

latitude;  Manin's  five,  75  miles;  Bartlett's  five,  60  miles;  and 
Peary's  five,  completing  the  program,  advanced  the  expedition 
134  miles,  a  totol  of  882  miles  of  latitude,  or  the  total  disUnce 
Jwtween  land  and  the  Pole  (less  the  8«  miles,  which  had  abeady 
J)een    traversed   with   McMillan).     Why  did   the   expedition 
move  only  6  miles  north  from  Camp  8  to  Camp  0,  and  only  6 
miles  north  from  Camp  9  to  Camp  10?    The  answer  is  that  the 
CONDITIONS  PREVENTED  it  from  doing  more.    Why 
could  Peary  in  cue  march  from  Camp  i5  to  Camp  26  make  28 
miles  and  from  Camp  26  to  Camp  27  in  one  march  make  86 
miles?    His  answer,  is  that  the  CONDITIONS  PERMITTED 
IT.     It  follows  then  that  the  unknown  CONDITIONS  de- 
termine the  length  of  the  marches.     Could  human  intellect 
foresee  t:.e  conuitions?    WithoV  foreseeing  them,  it  w«uld  be 
impossible  for  s,me  human  inte.i...  r.,  ;,  to  inUmate  that  over 
those  unknown  conditions  it  could  pi«.i  20  marches,  vaiying  in 
northing  from  6  to  36  miles,  that  it  coi  Id  divide  these  twenty 
marches  into  five  quinary  districts  each  vaiying  in  length  from 
54  to  134  miles  of  northing,  and  arrive  at  Camp  Jessup  at  the 
exact  time  predicted  at  the  moment  that  phys-'cal  strength  had 
reached  its  limit;  when  it  had  been  stramed  to  accomplish  the 
ast  mile  of  possible  advance.    If  any  one   member   of    the 
four  parties  had  sprained  an  ankle;  if  a  sledge  runner  had  broken- 
or  If  one  of  the  hundreds  of  pressure  ridges  had  been  a  litUe  too* 
high  for  ready  scaling;  or  if  any  accident  had  detained  the 
expedition  a  few  hours,  a  new  program  would  have  been  neces- 
Ssive  '''"*■     ^"'  ^^^'^  ^'  °'  prophecy  was  al' 

There  is  another  program  and  another  predicUon  covering 
the  return  to  land,  but  by  circumlocution  more  deeply  concealed 

find" it     T^  '"'i"'^.  ""^^'  "^"•'^S  ^^^^^  ^^^  to 

nnd  It.    The  circumlocution,  however,  may  be  fcUowed.    In 

discussing  drrft.  it  was  sho^v-n  that  every  explorer  on  the  Arctic 

sea  furnishes  unmipeachuhle  evidence  that  the.-  is  a  aeucral 

of  TJu  ^'l:"  ''^ '"  '^^  ^^^^  "^^  -«-•  -^  '^^-^ 

of  Grant  Land  the  general  drift  is  to  the  East.     In  1906  Peary 


m 

im:  3:,»,  ^^~w  r^ 


1S8 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


i;j 


\<^, 


^l' 


I . 


started  north  from  Heckla  claiming  to  have  reached  87°  06'.| 
In  returning  to  land,    '  -  easterly  current  was  so  strong  that  hel 
was  obliged  to  land  .      :he  Greenland  coast.    In  1909  he  sent 
an  expedition  under  borup  and  McMillan  to  deposit  caches  of 
provisions  along  the  north  coast  of  Grant  Land  and  of  Green-; 
land  some  400  miles,  presumably  in  the  event  he  should  again; 
encounter    the    same   current.    His    narrative    paradoxically! 
indicates  that  in  his  final  program  he  ignored  this  danger  of  aii' 
easterly  current,  anticipating  an  entirely  different  condition  of  i 
affairs.    He  evidently  assumed  that  there  would  be  no  easterly' 
current  this  time  to  prevent  his  retirni  from  such  distance  as  he! 
intended  to  go.    In  a  chapter  entitled  "Essentials  of  Success"! 
Peary  states  that:  "  To  return  by  the  same  route  followed  on  thg] 
upward  march,  using  the  beaten  trail,  and  the  already  constntdedl 
igloos  to  save  the  tivie  and  strength  that  would  have  been  expended ! 
in  constructing  new  igloos  and  in  trail  breaking, "  is  one  reason  { 
for  his  success.    He  assumed  he  could  make  a  direct  march; 
north  on  the  70th  meridian  from  Cape  Columbia  to  the  North 
Pole,  and  return  to  Cape  Columbia  in  the  trail  so  made,  and  he 
alleged  that  he  actually  accomplished  this  feat  covering  840: 
miles  of  latitude  (out  and  back)  landing  at  the  same  spot  from 
which  he  started,  not  being  drifted  from  his  course  a  single  mile. 
He  claims  that  his  20  years'  of  arctic  experience  account  for  his  ; 
abihty  to  plan  things  so  thoroughly.     Did  he  do  it?    Could  he 
do  it? 

The  following  quotation  gives  an  outline  of  his  "plan:"* 
(Not  the  "program") 

"Early  in  May,  1908  in  a  published  statement  I  sketched 

the    following    plan : Second,    leaving  , 

the  land,  my  course  will  be  more  west  of  north  than  before,  in  i 
order  to  counteract  or  allow  for  the  easterly  set  of  the  ice  between 
the  north  coast  of  Grant  Land  and  the  Pole,  discovered,  on  my  ' 

last  expedition On  the  return  march  in  the  next  ! 

expedition    I  shall  probably  do  voluntarily  what    I  did  in- 
voluntarily last   time,  that  is,   retreat  upon  the  north  coast  I 
of  Greenland  (a  course  diagonally  with  the  set  of  the  ice)  m-  i 
*From  Chapter  1  of  his  book. . 


m } 


Peary  Discredits  His  Own  Story  139 

stead  of  attempting  to  come  back  to  the  north  coast  of  "Grant 
Land,  (diagonally  «^atW  the  set  of  the  ice).  An  *djunc? of 
thxs  program  will  probably  be  the  establishment  of  a  St  weU 
up  the  north  coast  of  Greenland  by  the  first  of  the  suS^'rH^i 
parties  returning  to  the  ship."     .  ^  "The  detail  Ki! 

S  «  ifth  ^chTh"'  '^^'^  "  ^^"^•'^^  Sui'Safth^iL' 
nesswith    which  they  were  carried  out  consUtutes  a  record 

?nmn  "  ^k'^'^PI'^'^H^  '^  the  amials  of  A«.tic  ^ Wion 

executon.  it  -ill  be  noted  m  this  comparison,  that  practicaUv 
the  only  feature  of  the  plan  from  which  essentkdevS^w 
made  was  m  returning  to  Cape  Columbia  on  the  coaTt  of  GiSt 
G^nS^«  fl'r?"'"  ^twardto  the  northern  Swt^ 

MADE  CLEAR  IN  THEIR  PROPER  PLACE  " 

I  have  capitalized  the  last  sentence  because  it  is  so  wantonly 
misleading.  These  excellent  reasons  have  never  been  given.  A 
careftil  search  fails  to  find  them  anywhere  between  the  covers  of 
h^  book,  or  to  find  elsewhere,  that  they  have  been  "made 
clear  or  to  locate  that  "proper  ph««.»  I  can  imagine  no 
vahd  reasons  that  could  possibly  be  given  "excellent"  oTother^ 
wise,  for  such  a  rude  departure  from  a  .scientific  plan. 

S!  Morris  Jessup  on  the  Greenland  Coast  is  82  miles 
nearer  the  Pole  than  is  Cape  Columbia,  but  Peaiy  L  io^ 
choose  that  point  because  it  is  too  far  east.  He  ^enX  dS 
not  w,sh  o  take  the  risk  of  being  drifted  towanl  Spitzt^nty 

mne?f:^  ™"""*-  u"*  "'"'y  ^^«««  C*P«  Columbia  so^^i^ 
miles  further  west  than  Cape  Jessup.     Borup  and  McMilZ 

fee  fieUs^i^"^T  '^^  P^^^^on.    One  going  north  over 

reach  the  North  Pole  unless  he  shaped  his  course  to  the  west  of 
north   tc,  comiteract  or  to  allow  for  this  drift.    He  mZuZ 

coZe  *^"^^.^*^^'^^  he  could  not  know  how  to  shape  his  next 

u^ret^i^'t  """^  i%"  *"  "'^  *"y  ^^  of'l.rtainty 
upon  returning  to  any  definite  point  on  the  Und.  unless  he 
adopted  a  simUar  course  and  similar  methods  on  hi.  ^ 


a  t 


180 


Has  Ihe  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Borup  and  McMillan  established  these  depots  AFTER  THEY 
HAD  LEFT  PEARY  AT  CAMP  NO.  12  OUT  ON  THE 
POLAR  SEA.  It,  the««fore,  appears  that  Peary  considered 
these  precautionary  measures  prudent  up  to  the  time  at  least 
that  Borup  and  Goodsell  turned  back,  even  though  he  should 
go  no  farther  north  than  that  camp.  Notwithstanding  this 
fact  he  says  he  outlmed  the  "program"  of  the  quinary  districts 
"to  Borup  and  the  leaders  of  his  party,"  on  Mareh  19,  at  Camp 
No.  12  which  program  it  will  be  noticed  included  a  straight  line 
mareh  to  the  Pole. 

Peary  must,  therefore,  have  been  operating  simultaneously 
under  two  diametrically  opposing  programs.  In  one  of  them 
he  was  providing  for  a  known  easterly  drift.  This  is  without 
doubt  soimd  reasoning.  Li  the  other  he  assumed  to  know  that 
there  is  no  such  drift,  and  so  confident  was  he  (the  story  runs), 
that  he  did  not  take  a  single  observation  to  ascertain  his  longi- 
tude, in  order  to  know  whether  or  not  there  was  a  drift.  Never- 
theless, he  says  that  he  steered  straight  north  and  straight  back. 
The  second  plan  or  "program"  seems  to  be  a  monstrous  ab- 
surdity. 

Peary  did  know  there  was  an  easterly  current  ft    he  en- 
countered it  on  the  way  to  this  very  Camp  No.  12.     If  Borup 
writes  truly  this  easterly  drift  was  quite  terrific.    On  March  5, 
he  was  waiting  on  the  south  side  of  one  of  the  leads  for  an 
opportunity  to  cross  and  describes  the  scene  as  follows:*     "T' 
ice  on  the  far  side  of  the  lead  was  drifting  steadily  east 
although  there  was  no  wind,  etc."    On  March  7,  he  -i 
again :t     "The  lead  was  still  going  apart.    The  sea  ice    .  . 
drifting  eastward  so  fast  that  floe  bergs  we'd  marked  out  were 
out  of  sight  in  a  couple  of  hours.    The  Lord  only  knew  where 
the  tiaii  was.  We  didn't."    Again  under  same  date  rai  same 
page  he  further  says:  "Even  if  we  could  cross  the  lead,  we  did 
not  know  whether  we  could  recover  the  trail.    Vi^th  the  easteriy 
drift  of  the  ice,  we  didn't  know  but  what  the  trail  was  somewhere 

•Tmderfoot  with  Paary.  Page  160. 
\Tmidnfoot  wUk  Pmtry,  Page  102. 


Peary  Discredits  His  Own  Story 


181 


off  Cape  Colan,  thirty  miles  away."  In  the  face  of  such  con- 
ditions as  this,  Peary  writes  a  story,  that  he  outlined  a  program 
of  quinary  marches  and  carried  it  out  in  a  manner  "unique  m 
polar  work  "  by  marching  to  the  North  Pole,  back  to  land  at  the 
point  from  which  he  started  "m  the  tracks  of  the  outward 
march." 

This  is  as  unskillful  as  it  is  audacious.     Even  fiction  loses 
its  interest  when  it  is  manifestly  absurd.     Peary  knew  when  he 
promised  to  give  reasons  that  he  had  given  none.     He  can  give 
none.     But  by  this  subterfuge  about  postponement,  he  tempor- 
arily at  least  evaded  the  issue.     In  the  absence  of  any  later 
information  from  Peary,  it  is  permissible  to  give  our  own  ex- 
planation of  the  truth.    To  travel  over  moving  ice  in  a  straight 
line  between  two  fixed  points,  and  th«n  return  to  the  starting 
point  in  the  same  tracks  is  as  impossible  a  task  for  a  natural 
human  being  to  perform,  as  it  would  be  for  him  to  make  the 
journey  beneath  the  ice.    Peary,   by  making  this  feat  an 
"essential  of  success,"  risks  contradicting  himself  in  order  to 
shut  out  all  future  explorers  from  sharing  the  honors  with  him. 
Joshua  had  an  important  task  to  perform,  needing  Ught  for  his 
purpose,  so  the  sun  and  moon  stood  still  until  he  had  finished. 
But  the  effect  so  far  as  I  have  read,  was  local.    Yet  Joshua's 
comparatively  modest  claims  have  stood  unmatched  against 
the  world  for  centuries,  untii  now  a  greater  than  Joshua  is  bom, 
whose  claims  are  in  substance  that  the  North  Polar  Sea  stood 
still  for  54  days  (thereby  interrupting  the  movements  of  aU  the 
ocean  currents  on  the  globe),  letting  him  pass  over,  out  and 
back  m  an  air  line  distance  of  over  862  nautical  miles,  without 
this  ice  stirring  an  inch. 

Let  us  get  the  facts.  Peary  does  not  say  in  his  "plan" 
that  he  would  "retreat  upon  the  north  coast  of  GreenUmd  a 
course  diagonaUy  with  the  set  of  the  ice,"  but  says  "I  shall 
probably  do  voluntarily  what  I  did  mvoluntarily  Ust  time." 
Ibat  word  "probably"  permitted  him  to  change  his  mind  and 
^s  plan  as  he  naturaUy  would  if  he  could  make  an  improvement 
Me  could  easily  abandon  his  former  purpose  to  retreat  upon  the 


188 


Bas  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


fi%; 


f'Pi 


north  coast  of  Greenland  ( a  course  diagonally  with  the  set  of  the 
ice),  but  how  could  he  possibly  "come  back  to  the  north  coast 
of  Grant  Land"  and  escape  the  necessity  of  shapbg  his  course 
"diagonally  against  the  set  of  the  ice?"  This  is  a  point  that 
will  need  to  be  "made  clear"  by  most  "excellent  reasons" 
before  it  can  be  understood  by  ordbary  mmds. 

River  driving  of  saw  logs  is  skillful  work.    Some  of  the 
expert  log  riders  perform  marvelous  feats  on  rapidly  moving 
lo^  in  angry  currents.    Suppose  for  illustration  that  we  select 
a  river  a  few  hundred  yards  wide  filled  with  slowly  moving  saw 
logs,  slightly  covered  with  snow.    From  a  fixed  pomt  on  one 
side  of  the  stream  an  expert  log  rider  starts  to  cross  on  the  logs 
in  a  straight  line  to  a  fixed  pomt  on  the  opposite  bank.    With 
lightning  rapidity  he  alternately  selects  his  footing,  and  keeps 
in  view  his  goal.    He  must,  in  order  to  "counteract  the  set" 
of  the  logs  down  stream,  shape  a  course  deviatmg  slightly  up 
stream,  above  his  goal.    The  extent  of  this  deviation  depends 
first:  upon  the  swiftness  of  the  current  (or  the  moving  logs)  and 
second:    on  his  proximity  to  his  goal.    He  changes  this  devia- 
tion gradually  as  he  proceeds.    Could  this  expert  make  a 
straight  course  over  these  snow  covered  logs,  leaving  his  foot 
prints  in  a  straight  line?    Possibly  he  could  himself  travel  in  a 
straight  line,  but  it  must  be  admitted,  that  it  would  test  his 
skill.    But  what  becomes  of  his  tracks?    The  feat,  however,  is 
not  yet  fully  performed.    He  must  return  in  the  same  manner, 
in  the  same  straigh*  line,  m  the  tracks  already  made,  to  the 
starting  point.    Can  he  do  that?    When  he  returns,  he  must  as 
in  the  first  crossing  deviate  his  course  slightly  up  stream  to 
counteract  the  set  of  the  logs  down  str«am  m  order  to  make  a 
straight  line  course  to  his  goal,  and  he  must  continually  (as 
before  explained)  change  this  deviation  as  he  progresses.    But 
where  are  the  tracks  in  the  snow  which  he  made  in  the  first 
crossing?    Have  they  not  floated  on  down  the  river? 

Extend  the  illustration  imd  imagine  a  wider  .stream  filled 
not  only  with  moving  logs  but  with  high  ridged  log  jams, 
which  obstruct  his  v'  w  of  his  goal  and  ever  all  of  which  he 


Peary  Discredits  His  Ovm  Story  133 

must  cHmb.  and  stiU  keep  his  straight  Une  to  his  destination; 
sUU  keep  on  his  meridian,  not  knowing  his  longitude  or  his 
lateral  drift.    Could  any  expert  in  the  world  do  that?    One 
more  extension:    This  river  is  413  miles  wide.    These  log  jams 
are.  some  of  them.  "50  to  100  feet  high,  one  after  another, 
m  endless  succession  "leaving  "no  smooth  and  veiy  UtUe  level 
surface  between."    Suppose  that  this  surface  before  him  is 
of  almost  ununaginable  unevenness  and  roughness,"  "over 
which  he  must  go  as  over  a  series  of  hills, "  that  they  are  in  fact 
"mountains  of  log  jams."  "over  which  he  must  journey  with 
a  heavy  load. "    But  suppose  these  log  jams  on  this  wide  river, 
in  this  uneven  manner  "are  not  the  worst  feature. "    Suppose 
that  "far  more  troublesome  and   dangerous  are  the   leads 
over  which  he  must  raft  himself"  on  his  logs?    Could  this 
champion  so  shape  his  course  against  the  set  of  the  logs  down 
stream,  across  such  a  wide  river  as  this,  not  seeing  his  goal  once 
durmg  the  journey,  not  knowing  the  extent  of  this  "set"  not 
knowing  where  he  actuaUy  was  on  a  single  day,  and  stiU  make 
a  straight  Ime  across  this  stream  to  his  goal?    And  could  he 
shape  his  return  course  against  the  set  of  the  logs,  and  m  the 
tracks  of  the  first  crossing?    If  he  could  not  do  this,  he  is 
accordmg  to  Peary  shut  out  forever  from  North  Pole  honors. 
He  IS  no  longer  a  champion,  there  is  a  greater  than  he. 

A  tight  rope  walker  who  could  stretch  his  line  across  the 
Arctic  Sea  with  one  end  fastened  to  the  North  Pole,  and  the 
other  end  to  the  cliflfs  of  Cape  Colmnbia.  could  not  make  a  much 
more  du^t  route  out  and  back  than  Peaiy  indicates  he  did  with 
his  dog  teams,  without  knowing  on  a  single  day.  the  deviation 
n2'^''"?f ''  *^'  ^'^^  °^  ^^  ^^'  ^'^  *»•«  ^°"8it"de  on  which  he 
dnrli  ^/xf  ^^^  ^"  *^  ^*?  ^'Jd  he  possibly  have 
done  u?    Did  Nature  relax  her  laws?    Did  thVwinds  and 

^aip^'n'Jf.'  "^""^  '°'*^^-  ^^  ^^  "^*"  «f  ^^  '<*  floes 
t^!^  *•  c  *^f  "^  ''""^'**^  '**»P?  ^^  «>e  icy  covering  of 
the  ^tic  Sea  staiid  still?    Did  tac  motionless,  beveled  surfLs 

for^!  r''""*  ""(^f '  ^"^"^^  ^^^«^  '^^  «™«>th.  and  so  remain 

wUhou?T;/'"°!,"?\*'^'  ""^"^  ^*°**  *°  P^  ^'^t  ^<1  b««k 
without  distress,  disturbance,  or  delay? 


1S4 


Ha8  the  North  Pole  Peer  riscirered 


iy« 


I'  f 


if- 


This  plan  of  returning  in  the  trrcksj  of  O-p  outward  march 
seems  so  elementary,  and  so  obviously  wise,  that  if  it  were 
practicable,  it  is  strange  that  it  escap>ed  the  observation  of 
other  explorers,  especially  of  Cagni  and  of  Nansen.  The  latter 
had  only  129  miles  to  reach  his  ship.  Peary  had  418  to  land. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  any  argimient  about  this  italicized  essential 
is  superfluous.  Pre-supposing  a  return  over  the  tracks  of  the 
outward  march  on  the  Polar  Sea  is  taking  for  granted  a  condition 
of  practically  still  ice,  all  the  way.  This  supposition  makes  the 
trip  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  trip  over  solid  land,  and  pre- 
supposes an  entirely  diflPerent  plan  from  that  alleged  to  have 
been  made  and  followed.  It  presupposes  a  revolution  of 
previous  theories  of  arctic  travel.  It  should  not,  therefore,  be 
treated  seriously  in  connection  vnth  a  narrative  which  is  based 
wholly  on  allied  conditions  which  are  from  beginning  to  end 
incompatible  with  such  a  theory.  The  force  of  these  obvious 
facts  is  irresistible.  The  fallacy  which  they  establish  and 
expose  is  imdeniable. 

Roald  Amimdsen,  the  discoverer  of  the  South  Pole,  pro- 
poses to  avail  himself  of  this  well  known  current  and 
enter  the  ice  pack  with  his  ship  Fram  north  of  Behring  Strait 
in  1916,  hoping  thereby  to  drift  across  the  North  Pole  or  near 
it,  knowing  from  his  own  observations  in  his  remarkable  ex- 
perience in  the  north  polar  sea  that  this  easterly  current  exists. 
His  chief  problem  appears  to  be  to  enter  the  ice  pack  as  far 
north  as  possible  and  on  a  suitable  meridian  for  the  drift  to 
carry  him  to  the  vicinity  of  the  North  Pole.  If  Amundsen 
livps  to  make  this  passage  safely,  there  is  scarcely  a  doubt  that 
he  will  \nsit  the  North  Pole.*  Should  he  cross  the  alleged  path 
of  Peary  he  will  report  the  extent  of  the  spring  ciurent  which 
Peary  judiciously  avoided.  This  wiU  add  other,  although 
unnecessary,  evidence  of  the  impossibility  of  Peary's  "returning 
in  the  tracks  of  the  outward  march. " 

When  Amundsen  was  traveling  over  the  ice  barrier  on  his 
journey  to  the  South  Pole  where  the  surface  was  level  and 
*^noe  this  was  written,  Amundsen  has  somewhat  changed  his  plans. 


Peary  Discredits  His  Own  Story 


185 


smooth  and  still,  and  also  on  the  plateau  near  the  Pole  both  of 
which  surfaces  he  describes  as  perfect  conditions,  he  adopted  the 
following  method.  One  man  on  skis  acted  as  forerunner,  his 
tracks  marking  the  path  for  the  four  sledge  teams  which 
foUowed.  E.xh  sledge  had  a  compass,  but  the  man  on  the 
leading  team  gave  the  course.  It  was  the  steering  team.  The 
others  were  checks  on  the  steering  team.  The  driver  of  the 
steering  team  kept  right  over  his  compass  calling  constantly 
to  the  forerunner  on  the  ski  "a  little  to  the  right,"  "a  little  to 
the  left"  and  so  on  all  the  time  they  were  on  the  march.  The 
compass  variation  was  ascertained  at  every  observation,  and 
observations  were  taken  every  day  the  sun  was  out. 

Yet  in  spite  of  this  remarkable    thoroughness,    it    was 
impossible  to  travel  in  a  straight  line.     One  of  the  fore-runners 
was  prone  to  turn  to  the  right,  and  Amundseu  .ays  that  if  he 
were  left  to  himself  without  directions  from  the  steerer,  he 
would  soon  make  a  complete  circle.    He  writes,  "None  of  us— 
no  matter  who  he  may  be— «an  keep  in  a  straight  line  when  he 
has  no  marks  to  follow,"    Amundsen  established  a  depot  on 
every  degree  of  latitude.    Between  these  depots,  about  2% 
miles  apart,  he  erected  altogether  150  snow  beacons,  6  feet  high. 
He  also  erected  many  bamboo  stakes  between   these.    In 
several  places  along  the  route  he  erected  what  may  be  called  a 
fence;  a  row  of  stakes  at  right  angles  to  his  route,  5J^  miles  on 
each  side  of  his  path.     Each  stake  carried  a  flag  and  each  stake 
was  numbered.    If  he  varied  from  his  true  route  on  his  return 
as  much  as  5}^  miles,  either  to  the  right  or  to  the  left,  or  11 
miles  of  a  swing,  he  would  yet  strike  the  outer  post.     Such  were 
the  extraordinary  precautions  made  for  finding  his  way  back  to 
his  various  depots  on  level  surfaces.     Yet  notwithstanding  this 
prwjaution  he  experienced  great  difficulty  on  his  return,  in 
tmdmg  them  all.    In  fact,  during  a  snow  storm  he  passed  one  of 
them,  and  later  when  he  had  ascertained  his  true  ioi«tion  he 
found  that  the  depot  was  15  miles  from  where  he  stood.    Peaiy 
says,  that  the  principal  "essential  of  success"  for  anyone  "who 
wishes  to  reach  the  North  Pole  and  return  alive,"  is  "to  return 


HI ' 


*i 


,  1 4 


M' 


I 


i! 


•t 


■< 


136 


J7(M  <Ae  North  Pole  Ben  Discovered 


in  the  tracks  of  the  outward  march. "  If  this  rule  had  been  an 
"etaenual"  to  the  discovery  of  the  South  Pole,  even  though  on 
land,  Amundsen  with  all  his  care,  would  have  missed  many  of 
his  depots,  and  history  might  have  lost  its  most  wonderful 
explorer.  In  view  of  the  known  facts,  therefore,  it  is  impossible 
to  put  much  confidence  in  Peary's  plan  of  retiun. 

Fcr  piuposes  of  illustration,  it  will  be  assumed  that  Peary 
did  go  to  the  Pole,  and  that  the  camps  shown  on  Chart  No.  3 
from  Camp  No.  7  (McMillan  Camp)  to  Camj  No.  27  (Camp 
Jessup)  are  genuine,  that  the  expedition  actup  'y  built  igloos, 
and  rested  at  each  of  them,  and  that  Peary  rea  \  performed  all 
the  miracles  that  he  has  so  ingeniously  wrought  into  his  story. 
Under  this  assumption  we  shall  now  return  to  Camp  No.  7 
where  on  March  15,  at  latest,  Peary  is  supposed  to  have  formu- 
lated the  "program"  which  he  "outlined"  on  the  19th  to  the 
remaining  members  of  his  party.  Let  us  X-Ray  this  transac- 
tion. Peary  as  is  frequently  shown  in  these  pages  seems 
possessed  of  a  dual  character,  representing  to  a  peculiar  degree, 
that  "strange  case  of  Dr.  Jekyll  and  Mr.  Hyde."  It  was  Dr. 
Jekyll  who  formulated  the  "plan."  It  was  Mr.  Hyde  who 
outUned  the  "program."  Both  started  north  the  same  day 
(March  1,  1909)  fium  Cape  Columbia  for  the  North  Pole. 

Dr.  Jekyll's  plan  is  scientific.  It  is  in  substance  to  scatter 
depots  of  provision  along  the  coasts  of  Grant  Land  and  Green- 
land, some  400  miles  in  extent,  to  be  used  on  the  retirni  trip 
in  case  the  easterly  current  should  drive  him  to  those  shores. 
In  order  to  keep  on  the  70th  meridian  he  intended  to  shape  his 
course  to  the  west  of  north  so  em  to  counteract  the  force  of  the 
easterly  current.  If  his  northing  were  equal  to  his  easting, 
his  course  would  be  due  northwest.  This  would  keep  him  on 
the  70th  meridian,  and  his  progress  would  then  be  toward  the 
North  Pole.  If  his  northing  should  be  less  than  his  easting  his 
course  would  be  more  to  the  west.  If  his  northing  should  be 
more  than  his  easting,  his  course  would  be  more  toward  the 
north.  Consequently  his  course  would  be  varied  from  time  to 
time  as  he  ascertained  his  position,  and  learned  the  extent  of 


Peary  Discredits  His  Ovm  Story 


187 


his  northing  and  easting.  After  reaching  the  Pole  and  having 
the  experience  of  speed  and  the  easterly  drift  of  the  ice  on  the 
outward  trip,  he  would  have  the  choice  of  at  least  two  methods 
for  his  return.  He  must,  of  course,  hy  any  method,  start  from 
a  fixed  point,  the  North  Pole.  But  as  it  is  but  418  miles  from  the 
Pole  to  land,  and  as  the  northern  coast  line  is  over  500  miles  in 
extent,  he  would  feel  perfectly  safe  in  reaching  land  somewhere, 
provided  he  made  as  much  southing  with  his  dog  teams,  as 
easting  by  the  current.  He  could  then  choose  his  method  of 
returning  to  land. 

First :  he  might  return  on  the  70th  meridian  by  the  identi- 
cal method  of  the  outward  journey,  straight  back  to  Cape 
Columbia.  He  would  in  that  event  steer  southwest,  providing 
his  experience  so  far  indicated  that  his  southing  and  his  easting 
would  be  equal.  But  if  he  were  delayed,  or  should  make  more 
rapid  advance  than  he  had  calculated;  or  if  the  easterly  current 
w^  more  or  less  swift  (depending  on^he  wind),  he  would  direct 
his  course  further  west  or  further  south,  as  he  ascertained  his 
position  from  time  to  Ume,  and  would  thereby  keep  on  his 
chosen  70th  meridian,  and  land  at  Cape  Columbia. 

Second:  he  might  start  for  land  by  first  steering  straight 
south,  and  let  the  current  cany  him  where  it  would  until  he 
reached  land;  his  actual  path  in  this  event  would  be  "diagonally 
mth  the  set  of  the  ice."  or  diagonal  to  the  70th  meridian. 
Such  was  Dr.  Jekyll's  "plan."  Mr.  Hyde's  "program"  is 
different.  He  is  intuitively  guided  by  something  higher  than 
science— something  that  governs  science.  His  "program"  is 
to  steer  due  north  on  the  70th  meridian  to  the  North  Pole,  then 
to  return  on  the  same  meridian,  straight  back  to  Cape  Columbia 
in  the  tracks  of  the  outward  march. "  Mr.  Hyde's  "  program  " 
grange  to  say  turned  out  to  be  wiser  than  Dr.  Jekyll's  "plan  " 
Mr.  Hyde  reached  land  safely  to  tell  his  tale  of  an  accomplished 
miracle.  What  became  of  Dr.  JekyU  and  his  rational  plan  is 
8tUI  mysteiy.  History,  therefore,  in  this  strange  event  cannot 
be  made  to  conform  with  facts  because  it  has  no  alternative 
but  to  make  its  choice  between  miracle  and  mystery. 


188 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecoeered 


li.^ 


The  paragraph  purporting  to  outline  a  "program"  con- 
tains other  matters,  aside  from  the  program  itself,  which 
require  attention.  The  digressions  r^arding  men,  dogs  and 
sledges  are  contradictory  and  inaccurate.  A  statement  as  to 
the  number  of  dogs  in  Borup's  returning  equipment  is  suflScient 
illustration  to  indicate  the  slip-shod  and  unreliable  character 
of  the  narrative. 


Peary  says* 
Peary  saysf 
Peary  saysj 
Henson  says** 
Borup  says*** 


Borup  returned  with  20  dogs. 
Borup  returned  with  16  dogs. 
Borup  returned  with  18  dogs. 
Borup  returned  with  17  dogs. 
Borup  returned  with  16  dogs. 


Is  this  a  record  of  actual  facts?  If  so,  how  many  dogs  did 
Borup  take  with  him  on  his  return?  What  reliable  information 
is  conveyed  to  the  public  by  these  figures?  What  was  the 
importance  of  such  a  detailed  record,  if  it  was  guess  work? 
The  arithmetic  as  to  dogs  for  the  later  divisions  is  just  as  con- 
flicting. He  says  in  the  program  on  pages  241,  242  that  Marvin 
was  to  retmn  with  20  dogs,  on  page  258  he  says  he  return.  ^  mtii 
17  dogs.  He  says  in  his  program  that  Bartlett  was  to  return 
with  20  dogs,  but  on  page  266  and  again  on  page  268  he  says  he 
returned  with  18  dogs  and  although  they  killed  one  d<^,  the 
dogs  left  for  the  Polar  expedition  remained  at  the  program 
figure,  40.  He  appeared  to  have  foreseen  in  his  enxuneration 
the  number  of  dogs  that  would  be  killed  all  the  way  to  the 
Bartlett  Camp. 

The  number  of  sledges  mentioned  in  the  program  is  just  as 
faulty.  If  Borup  left  10  sledges  for  the  main  party,  and  Marvin 
took  one,  naturally  9  were  left.     But  Peary  says  in  his  program 

•North  Pole.  Vhgea  241-843 
^Nortk  PoU.  Pages  241-24S 
{Test  W«8h.,  D.  C.  Pi«e  56 
**Negro  at  the  North  PoU.  IVige  117 
***  Tenderfoot  with  Peary.  Pige  181 


Peary  DiaerediU  Hit  Own  Story 


188 


it  was  7  and  in  the  Outlook*  he  saya  there  were  10.    BartJett 
took  one  from  this  number  of  9  which  would  leave  8.    The 
program  says  5.    This  statement  may  be  answered  by  saying 
a  sledge  was  abandoned  at  the  Marvin  Camp  and  perhaps 
others  not  mentioned.     If  so  it  would  be  easy  to  account  for 
the  figures.  But  the  point  is,  how  did  Peaiy  know  these  figures 
before  the  events  occurred,  and  insert  them  in  his  program  on 
a  previous  date  (the  19th)?    Is  it  so  veiy  important  that  the 
public  should  be  accurately  informed  as  to  the  status  of  those 
eqmpments  returning— and  of  those  remaining?    If  important 
18  the  evidence  clear  or  reliable  as  to  the  numbers  of  either  dogjl 
or  sledges?    Is  not  the  evidence  fairly  clear  by  the  very  con- 
struction of  the  paragraph  describing  the  program  that  these 
erroneous  details  are  injected  merely  for  the  purpose  of  diverting 
attention  from  the  impossible  prediction  which  the  paragrash 
starts  out  to  make? 

The  description  of  the  camps  and  of  the  quinary  divisions 
also  IS  unsatisfactory.     Peaiy  saysin  the  "progr  im:"     "At  the 
end  of  this  march,  on  the  evening   of    the    19th 
I  outUned    ....    the  program.    At  the  end  of  the  next 

Z^tu  '  \  '  ^^^'""^  ''°''^^  ^  fi^«  marches  from  where 
MacMillan  and  the  doctor  turned  back)  Borup  would  return. 
•  .  .  .  At  this  camp  the  supplies,  equipment  and  per- 
sonal gear  of  Borup  and  lus  Eskimos,  were  left  for  them  to 
pick  up  on  their  way  home,  thus  avoiding  the  transportation  of 
some  two  hundred  and  fifty  pouncb  out  and  back  over  the  next 
march.       These  words  are  as  unreliable  as  the  wind.    The 

ZJ-^^  """^  >"^*'"  '^°'^**  "***  ^  "fi^«  "*«^fa««  '«>»«  where 
McMiUan  ar-^     le  doctor  turned  back."    It  would  be  six 

Neither  was  ,t  where  Borup  "would  return"  or  from  where  he 

dd  return.    Borup  turned  back  on  the  morning  of  the  20th, 

at  the  vej  camp  where  Peary  then  was  assuming  to  be  on  March 

IStf.,  and  at  wiueh  camp  he  says  he  outlined  his  program  (ii 

was  can.p  12)  „et  at  the  next  camp  b^ond  18.    TWsTprovL 

by  the    program", tself.    Neither  the  marohes  nor  the  quinary 
•Sept  18. 1909,  Pace  06.  H'*»**«7 


uo 


11  aa  the  North  Pole  Been  Dimuered 


\  .■ 


"I   = 


\  li? 


divisious  wiW  divide  up  in  any  other  way  than  that  which  is 
shown  on  Diagram  8.  McMillan  turned  ha.k  at  C  mip  7, 
Borup  at  12,  Manin  at  17,  Bartlett  at  ««.  Peary  at  i'^.  Each 
division  fter  McMillan  returned  made  five  marcbia  }«yond  the 
last  rctiir-n .  party.  This  division  of  districts  h  the  meat  of 
the  pnpTiti"  To  include  these  divisions  nd  U)  mtlin.^  this 
predirtion ,  \  n^  obviously  the  only  object  in  stating  it. 

1      nn  <as;iy  be  seen  that  one  could  forget  thest    icUuls 
in  ft  rf»nfor'<.'  program  "outlined"  after     (e  '  vents.     But  if 
Pear)  li  ui  a-   .  Oly  beei   }»resent  and  had  v,r;tten  in  his  diary  at 
the  tin  e  the.p  alleged  farts  occurred,  he  -    uld  n.     ha  e  been 
misUken  a.«  to  wl,.ther  "onip  turned  ba  k  at  that  camp  or 
made  one  more  march.     Neither  could  he  have  been  mistaken 
as  to  whether  he  "left  the  supplies,  cfjuipment  and  personal 
gear  of  Borup  and  th    Kskim<.s,  to  pi.  k  up  m  their  way  home. " 
On  the  very  next  pag»  after  this  pr<»Lram.  writing  from  his  diary 
on   the  20th,   appears   this  e.  nflicting   statement*       In   the 
morning  Bartlett   again  took  chnrce  of  the  pioi    '•r  dix  aion. 
starting  early  with  two  Eskimos,  >  xteen  dogs  and  two  sledges. 
Borup,  a  little  later,  with  Mee  Eskimos,  sixteen  dogs,  andonesledge 
started  on  his  return  to  theU  id. "  This  was  on  the  morning    f  the 
«Oth.    Henson  says:t    that  Boruj    returned  on  the  raommg  of 
the  20th.    That  he,  Henson  worked  from  8  p.  m   oci  t»  ■  I9th 
to  2  a.  m.  of  the  20th    rranging  the  loads  for  B.  »mp  for       eariy 
start.  Borup  himself  say^ '  '  March  20:"    "This      s  my    .rth«^* 

north Just  as  1  left,  the  Captain  w     ihisdnton 

was  starting  on  ahead  to  pion«*r  the  road. "  then  ny 

truth  in  anything  that  has  be  i  written  aljout      is  e.xp        on. 
it  is  established    .eyond  con*    >versy,  that  B     up  did  li      g« 
beyond  Camp  12.    He  arrive*,  there  on  the  evci  mg  of  the  Hfth 
It  was  the  end  of  his  joume>    north      The  nex    morning,  ♦* 
20th  about  10  o'ckwk  as  BarUett  was  starting     orth,  Borup 
started  «outh  on  his  reiuni  ^   land     Y- notwiti    tandms  ^bis 


*NoTth  PoU.  Pafe  «48. 

^N«gro  at  the  North  PoU,  Pagr     JS. 

XTenderfoot  with  Ptary,  Ptgft    'S. 


P  ary  IHacredila  Hu,  Ovm  >tory  141 

evi.le„l    f^t   Pean    «  year  nftemards.     .inR  th«,  oerfectlv 
.   l.«.  .^  .  ,„u.v.  ..,  done.  de,iher.e,/p:l;r,h^r2^ 

I)  C  •    i^rr  ''!'T"^*  '"    '■'  '"'^i^y  at  Washington 
>.  C.        Pearv    .nf  .KJiue^d  a.        dence  v  ha.    >.e  said  wa/hS 

1/1.      ae^,^.  f'ites  that  provisions  were  left 

P  f<»r     -n,     to    .Mk  up  on  his  ntum  fn,m  the  next 

xpJained    to    the    ^'    jfressional 

'tthat    amp.     I  caj       ink  of  no 

hat        may  have  reminded  his 

i'eai        annot  offer     his  ex-  use 

^ards  i         he  published  it  in  Us 

ter  when  he  t  .hibited  his  ,Uleged  diaiy 

t.t  could  not  Ik.  true.     It.  therefo,^.  .ould  seem 


th. 

*Xf 


Murch 
that 

rch     .'><'\,    id 
t      imittet      hj 
ex'    4e  for  t.  [><    Uj 
'n-">ifi  *l!ons  t(i  ii< 
'■*■■•'     •'it  a  yp; 

""i^     ind  t  jir^ 

"'         shinp 
!a      r . 

c.  ar    har     ,.       ■  p^gram "  is  a  creation,  'tofilU 
toiy  of  a     imaginaiy  trip  to  the  North  Pole. 

Th,  i^'i-eary  Achieve' the  North  Pole.  " 

Lh  "hlv?„T  "^^.  "**•"  incon«i,tencie.s  . 

Pearv  s  Conflicting  SUtemen 


par'     f  i- 

JoL     .»n 
1 


;m     in  the 

*»*  enUtled 
on  the 


Pg. 


'*?' 


I'g.83 


ll'K 


35 


Haiapton's 

Sept. 
Pg.  893 
North  Pole 
Pg.  3«5 

Vorth  Pole 
Pg.  19.S 

North  Pole  i 
Pg.  386 


rT^  f*^^  parallel  March  18th 
Croswd  84th  parallel  March  11th 
Crossed  84th  parallel  March  14th 

~^^^^^I>.x.tor  reached  the  Boo^vdT; 


Cape   Columbia.     W^t  from    Sherid«    W 


Cape  Columbia.    Distant  from  Sheridan  73  miT 


*TMtPageS5. 


142 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


I'    s 


I   h 


This  program  which  Peary  writes  "was  carried  out  without 
a  hitch"  has  other  "hitches"  that  may  be  named.     Speed  was 
comparatively  a  simple  matter.     If  he  was  to  be  at  the  Bartlett 
Camp  at  87"  47'  on  April  1,  and  again  at  Cape  Columbia  on 
April  23,  it  was  chiefly  a  question  of  mathematics  how  he  should 
dispose  of  the  time  intervening  between  the  1st  and  the  «8d, 
and  cover  584  miles.    He  worked  in  with  marvelous  ingenuity 
about  all  that  was  at  his  disposal.    A  serious  and  apparent 
misUke  in  his  planning  was  his  oversight,  as  to  proper  divisi<ni 
of  time  when  he  assumes  he  was  at  the  Pole.    As  far  as  the  time 
of  the  whole  alleged  trip  is  concerned,  it  will  be  noticed  that  he 
works  in  every  day,  does  not  lose  two  hours  after  leaving  the 
Bartlett  Camp  until  he  reaches  land  again.    Neither  broken 
sledges,  high  winds,  extreme  cold,  pressure  ridges,  or  open  leads 
delayed  him.    He  uses  all  the  time  and  marches  every  day,  some 
days  18  hours.    This  is  all  anyone  could  do,  but  even  by  doing 
this,  he  must  not  only  keep  going  every  day,  but  he  must  cover 
enonnous   and  unprecedented  spaces  in   that  time.     Unfor- 
tunately doing  this  compels  him  to  exceed  greatly  all  records  <m 
land  or  sea.     But  Bartlett.    Can  Dartlett  keep  out  of  the  way 
and  at  the  same  time  keep  on  the  ice?    There  is  one  way  out  of 
this,  and  possibly  one  way  only.    Bartlett  must  at  times  travel 
40  hours  at  a  stretch  without  sleep.    He  travels  it,  but  the 
fact  must  be  concealed  in  "marches."     But  now  at  an  un- 
propitious  moment  comes  the  unsophisticated  boy  Borup,  and 
in  his  anxiety  to  extol  the  great  physical  qualities  of  Bartiett 
tells  that  he  "sometimes  on  his  return  marched  40  hours  with- 
out sleep"  and  lets  out  the  secret.    Such  close  calculation  of 
time  has  its  pitfalls. 

I  have  assumed  it  to  be  true  that  Peary  went  to  the  Pole, 
in  order  to  show  that  even  if  true,  his  alleged  program  was 
impossible  of  execution  by  a  finite  being.  But  whether  it 
could  have  been  executed  or  not,  if  issued,  there  is  abimdant 
evidence  that  the  two  programs,  one  at  Camp  No.  12,  and  the 
other  at  Camp  No.  22,  making  a  major  program,  were  myths 
and  were  never  issued.    The  only  pomt  I  have  wished  to  make, 


Peary  Discredits  His  Own  Story 


148 


in  this  review,  is  what  the  truth  shows,  that  the  narrative  is 
unreliable,  unbelievable,  and  is  unquestionably  a  creation.  In 
view  of  the  incongruities  which  have  been  shown,  may  it  not 
reasonably  be  surmised  that  the  predictions  and  programs  may 
have  been  formu  .ced  after  the  imaginary  facts  had  occurred? 

Evidence  is  furnished  by  Henson's  book*  which  further 
establishes  the  unreliability  of  Peary's  narratives.  It  seems 
almost  providential  that  it  should  have  appeared  in  its  present 
form  in  this  corroborative  way,  further  (though  unconsciously) 
unfolding  the  real  truth,  as  to  the  character  of  all  these  writings. 
Henson's  early  articles  all  bore  evidence  of  candor.  His  des- 
criptions of  facts  and  events  were  interesting  and  intelligent. 
He  furnished  many  pictures,  and  says  he  took  over  a  hundred. 
They  were  clear,  and  graphically  illustrated  what  he  had 
written.  In  his  book  he  omits  all  but  one  picture  the  "North 
Pole  C.  np."  His  book  in  fact  overturns  or  withdraws  practi- 
cally all  the  original  statements  of  fact  in  his  early  work,  and 
for  this  reason  sheus  valuable  light  on  this  interesting  exposi. 

I  shall  not  prolong  this  review  h^  a  detailed  examination 
of  Henson's  book.  It  is  sufficient  to  refer  briefly  to  a  few 
items  only,  although  they  are  not  of  much  importance  in  them- 
selves, to  show  the  unreliability  and  the  worthlessness  of 
Henson's  narrative  as  a  chronicle  of  actual  events,  and  to  show 
that  its  real  object  is  to  bolster  up  the  fictitious  statements  of 
Peary. 

In  an  article  by  Henson  in  the  Boston  American^  July  17, 
1910,  he  wrote  tliat  on  the  first  day  north  frcm  the  Bartlett 
Camp  (April  2)  they  traveled  20  miles.  In  his  book,  to  make 
it  agree  with  Peary's  book  with  which  it  before  differed,  he 
says  they  "  traveled  on  that  day  a  full  5:5  miles. "  In  the  same 
article  he  says:  speaking  of  the  arrival  at  Camp  Jessup,  April  6: 
"Lieutenant  Peary  was  the  only  surprised  man.  He, because 
of  his  crippled  feet  had  ridden  on  the  sledges  the  greater  part 
of  the  journey  up,  as  he  did  upon  the  return.  Riding  one  can- 
not so  well  judge  of  distance  traversed.  He  made  no  observa- 
*A  Negro  at  the  PoU.  written  after  his  Kctmcilutioa  with  Pttuy. 


144 


Ha8  the  North  Pole  Been  Diteovered 


»'  (• 


;l     X 


tions  in  the  five  days.  We  kept  ahead  or  just  out  of  his  read 
so  that  he  might  not  load  himself  upon  our  sledges.  He  waj 
heavy  for  the  dogs  to  haul.  We  knew  he  could  walk  but  littlt 
in  rough  ice.  Only  one  of  his  little  toes  remamed  from  thai 
terrible  frost  of  1900.  He  was  compelled  to  ride.  Much  ol 
my  work  was  ahead  breaking  the  trail  and  caring  for  advance 
things. " 

Now  read  the  book  page  129:  "From  ST  48'  north 
(Bartlett  Camp)  he  (Peary)  kept  in  the  lead  and  did  his  work  in 
such  a  way  as  to  convince  me  that  he  was  still  as  good  a  man  at 
he  had  ever  been.  I  do  not  believe  he  slept  for  one  hour  from 
April  2  until  after  he  had  loaded  us  up  (at  the  Pole  April  7) 
and  ordered  us  to  go  back  over  our  old  traU. "  These  quotation* 
are  sufficient  to  show  that  no  value  can  be  placed  on  such  conJ 
flicting  reports  alleged  to  be  records  in  a  diary.  Henson' 
foUows  Peaiy's  tactii  s  and  attempts  to  hide  himself  from  his: 
first  statement,  that  his  book  may  also  conform  to  Peaiy's 
late  '  revised  statement.  But  Henson,  thereby  convicts  him-| 
self,  as  Peary  did  himself,  of  deliberate  falsehood.  '■ 

Henson  eliminates  from  his  book  every  one  of  the  con-i 
trrdictoiy  statements  which  we  noted  in  the  early  part  of| 
Chapter  HI.    Weather,  going,  ice,  distances,  hours  of  travel, 
observations,  etc.,  are  aU  changed;  not  to  conform  more  per- 
fecUy  to  his  diary,  but  contradicting  his  diary  (if  that  reads; 
as  he  said  it  did),  to  conform  to  Peaiy's  fictitious  stoiy.     It  \ 
would  be  tedious  now  to  indicate  in  detail  the  significance  of : 
all  these  changes.    Those  who  wish,  need  only  to  read  one 
article  in  the   WorUTs    Work  of  April   1910  and   the   Boston  i 
Amerwan,  July  17,  1910,  then  to  read  Henson's  book  to  under-  I 
stand  its  thbly  disguised  purpose.    There  is  nothing  m  the 
book  but  non-essentials.    The  culpabiUty  is  obvious,  and  it  is 
also  obvious  that  the  book  is  censored  and  dominated  by  the  ' 
same  interest  as  Peary's  book  The  North  Pole.  \ 

One   fact,    however,    which   Henson    does   inadvertently  \ 
mention  will  be  mentioned.    It  was  obviously  an  oversight, 
which  will  require  another  edition  of  his  book  to  correct.    On  ' 


Peary  DiacrediU  His  Own  Siory 


145 


pages  134  and  185  he  speaks  of  what  was  done  on  April  7  at  the 
imagbaiy  Camp  Jessup.    While  this  statement  contradicts 
flatly  every  word  uttered  by  Peaiy  as  to  what  he  did  and  where 
he  was  on  that  day,  no  one  will  for  that  reason  believe  Henson 
because  he  also  repudiates  himself.    Henson  says  Peary  took 
the  sun  at  1050  a.  m.,  April  7,  then  took  a  nap,  and  asked  not 
to  be  allowed  to  sleep  over  four  hours,  etc.    Then  read  Peary's 
book  of  that  day.  the  7th,  where  he  says  that  he  arrived  at  the 
camp  at  6  a.  m.,  after  being  out  all  night  on  his  aUeged  midnight 
trip  mto  another  hemisphere;  took  the  sun  at  6  a.  m.  and  then 
immediately  started  off  on  another  excursion  eight  nules   >ut 
and  back,  not  arriving  in  camp  agam  until  just  in  time  to  take 
a  set  of  NOON  observations,  and  did  not  sleep  from  6  p.  m  the 
day  before,  (the  6th  of  April)  to  12  p.  m.  on  the  7th.    According, 
therefore,  to  Peaiy's  narrative,  he  was  out  traveling,  and  was 
not  within  some  eight  miles  of  camp  when  Henson  says  aU  these 
CevidenUy   concocted)    minutely   detaUed   events   happened. 
This  mistake  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  typographical  error  m  the 
date,  for  Henson  was  already  on  record  as  saying  that  the  sun 
did  not  shme  on  the  6th.  and  that  no  observations  were  taken  or 
could  have  been  taken  for  that  reason  on  that  day. 

Perhaps  the  most  deplorable  feature  in  this  connection  is, 
that  it  affects  not  only  the  citiaais  of  the  United  States,  who  are 
now  pensioning  Peaiy  for  his  perfidy,  but  aUio  dims  the  glory 
of  all  Arctic  explorers  who  are  belitUed  by  a  comparison  with 
tnese  hctitious  achievements. 


'A 


m- 


ml 

Hlf 

:  M,1    i  ■      ' 

If' 


11  p> 


CHAPTER   V 

SHADOWS 

"The  church  says  the  earth  is  flat, 

Bvi  I  know  that  it  is  round,  for  I  have  i 

Seen  the  shadow  on  the  moon,  and  I  have  | 

More  faith  in  a  shadow  than  in  the  church.*^ — Magellan. 

Further  evidence  as  to  the  veracity  of  Peary's  story  ii 
contained  In  his  photographs  purporting  to  have  been  taken  a1 
the  North  Pole  and  entitled  "The  Four  Directions  From  th< 
Pole,"*  views  presumed  to  be  approximating  North,  South 
East  and  West.  The  points  of  the  compass  may  be  mentionec 
for  the  present  description,  as  Camp  Jessup  is  represented  tc 
be  a  few  miles  from  the  Pole.  | 

It  is  impossible  from  any  of  his  statements  written  or  spoken 
to  ascertain  the  precise  hour  when  Peary  took  these  photo- 
graphs. Mr.  Roberts  endeavored  to  obtain  this  information 
from  Peary  in  the  hearing  at  Washington.! 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Captain,  can  you  tell  us  about  what  tim« 
the  photographs  were  made  at  or  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Pole, 
with  relation  to  your  arrival  there?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— -'Not  precisely,  no;  the  photographs  wet^ 
made  at  different  times;  as  I  had  opportunity.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'You  arrived  about  noon  time  on  the  6th  oi 
April?' 

"Capt.  Peary. -'About  ten  o'clock.' 

"Mr.  iloftert*.— 'Were  any  of  them  made  that  day?* 

"Capt.  Peary.— -'I  should  say  that  they  were.'  * 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Can  you  give  us  any  idea  whether  th^ 
were  made  before  you  had  made  your  astronomical  observationa 
or  afterwards?* 

•JVorrt  Pole,  Opposite  page  S99.  reproduced  herewith. 
tPkge  126.  Tttammy. 


LOOKING    TOWAHD    ("APF:    CHELYUSKIX 


L(M)KI\G    TO»VAKD    HPITZBKUOKV 


.-5^*?"i»: 


L(MiKI\(J    TOWAHD    CAPE    COLUMBIA 


ii. 


i-UOKIMi    l»>WAUD   BKHIXG   HTKAIP 

(The  F(-ur  Dirfitinns  fn  m  the  Pdc) 


■-.  "•■w^ti.iuA  in  m  inc  I'ciic; 

■.riKMnal,  in  Pvarv.,  lr,ok    t;    ,1,  ,rlJT,.ll   i,    .u  '  "  Ki^^fen-m  u    must    l.e   rna.le    t.,    the 


'1   i: 


PI 
If 


I! 

It' 


11 


I 


Shadow* 


1«7 


"Capt.  Peary. — 'I  should  say  that  some  of  those  photogn4)ha 
were  maae  in  the  evening' — 

"Jfr.  Roberta. — 'Just  one  momoit.  You  recall  now  that  I 
am  speaking  of  the  foiur  that  were  pointed  out  in  the  book;* 
those  are  the  partic^dar  ones  I  am  talking  about.  I  wanted  to 
identify  those  i)art..dar  ones.' 

"Capt.  Peary, — 'Yes.  I  can  not  say  exactly  when  .  -  ."ere 
taken,  but  they  were  taken  after  8  o'clock  of  the  6th;  ^  c  .ay 
that.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  recall  the  precise  time,  other 
than  to  say  that  they  were  taken  after  8  o'clock,  because  they 
were  taken  in  sunUght.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— They  were  taken  after  8  o'clock  of  the  eth?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — They  were  taken  after  8  o'clock  of  the  6th. 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'In  the  morning?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — They  were  taken  some  time  between  8  p. 
m.  of  the  6th  and  4  p.  m.  of  the  7th.'" 

This  testimony,  it  will  be  observed,  is  valueless  for  it  is 
indefinite  and  the  facts  recited  are  self-evident.  Peaty  had 
already  stated  that  it  was  cloudy  om  the  6th  and  that  the  sun 
was  obscured  from  6  p.  m.  until  8  p.  m.,  but  that  the  sky  then 
cleared  and  remained  clear  from  that  tune  until  4  p.  m.  on  the 
7th  at  which  time  he  says  he  departed  t<x  the  south.  There 
was,  tberdfore,  no  other  time  in  his  story  when  these  photographs 
could  have  been  taken  but  between  those  hours,  8  p.  m.  on  the 
6th  and  4  p.  m.  on  the  7th.  It  remains  to  be  ascertained  how 
much  the  interval  between  those  hours  can  be  reduced,  in  (»der 
to  know  about  what  time  the  pictures  could  have  been  taken. 

At  8  p.  m.  on  April  6,  when  the  sun  came  out,  Peaiy  says 
he  had  left  Camp  Jessup  two  hours  previous  (6  p.  m.),  and  was 
on  his  ten  mile  trip  into  the  "other  hemisphere."  He  did  not 
return  to  Camp  Jessup  until  6  a.  m.  on  the  7th;  at  which  latter 
time  and  place,  after  taking  a  series  of  observations,  he  im- 
mediately started  on  the  second  trip  of  8  miles  out  and  back, 
returning  to  Camp  Jessup  at  noorif  April  7.  Of  this  trip  he 
saysrt  "Therefore,  with  a  double  team  of  dogs  and  a  light 
iledge.  I  traveled  directly  toward  the  sun  an  estimated  distance 
of  eight  miles.    Again  I  returned  to  the  camp  in  time  for  a  final 

*Sortk  PaU.  Opponte  iMce  t99. 


148 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


■6.  t  ■ 


y;     |! 


and  completely  satisfactory  series  of  observations  on  April  7 
at  noon,  Coliunbia  Meridian  time.    These  observations  gave 
results  essentially  the  same  as  those  made  at  the  same  spot 
twenty-four  hours  before."*    This  accounts  for  the  time  up 
to  and  after  noon  April  7,  when  he  nad  taken  the  alleged  series 
of  observations,  and  had  finished  the  computations  thereon. 
He  then  tells  what  he  did  in  the  remaining  four  hours  :t 
"In  the  afternoon  of  the  7th,  after  flying  our  flags  and  TAKING 
OUR  PHOTOGRAPHS,  we  went  into  our  igloos  and  tried  to 
sleep  ahttle  before  starting  south  again."  "About  four  o'clock 
on  the  afternoon  of  the  7th  of  April  we  turned  our  backs  upon  the 
Camp  at  the  North  Pole. "    We  may  suppose  that  he  used  the 
time  between  noon  and  4  p.  m.  as  follows:    That  he  finished 
his  series  of  observations  and  caknilations  at  1  p.  m.  then  flew 
his  flags  and  took  the  photographs  until  8  p.  m.,  then  went  into 
the  igloos  to  sleep  until  4  p.  m.    It  is  now  quite  clear  that  to 
correspond  with  his  stoiy,  the  photographs  must  have  been 
taken,  AFTER  he  had  made  his  cakuk tions  from  his  "final  and 
completely  satisfactory  series  of  observations  on  April  7,  at 
noon  Columbia  Meridian  time"  or  say  after  1  p.  m.  and  before 
8  p.  m.  when  he  went  into  his  igloo  to  sleep.      At  4  p.  m.  he 
says  he  started  south.    The  photographs  then  were  taken 
perhaps  between  1  p.  m.  and  8  p.  m.    This  presumption  ia 
precise  enough  for  present  purposes. 

The  sun  at  1  p.  m.  Columbian  Meridian  time  April  7,  was 
over  the  86th  meridian  ;t  at  2  p.  m.  it  was  over  the  100th  merid- 
ian; at  8  p.  m.  it  was  over  the  115th  meridian.  The  alleged 
Camp  Jessup  was  either  on  the  70*;!  meridian  or  on  the  170th 
meridian  according  to  which  of  Peaiy's  conflicting  statements 
as  to  the  location  of  the  camp,  is  accepted.  Either  lo«»tion 
yria  do  for  this  illustration.  Therefore,  had  he  taken  the 
picture  "Toward  Cape  Columbia"  between  the  hours  of  1  juid 
8  p.  m.  April  7  and  from  the  alleged  Camp  Jessup  (either  <m  the 

•Vk.  Ut.  saf  71'  Long.  70*  Wet  (CdumbU  Meridian.) 
iNorIk  PoU.  Fkge  300. 
}Diagnun  No.  S. 


mm 


Shii'^mrii 


UM 


'■,1    lil     i7»»!it    Jii<  .i-U..Il(,    11. «.     :,iin    Udilij 


in.!  sl.-hllv  to  tl.p  riyht.     11-   ^-.y^^^^^,,,*^..,^,^ 


ifv  was  i!i  f!i<'  r.-:ir  c-f  tin'    ir-  i  .   XT^X^Ha,!^  "'*'*'^'*"^ 

(tu-   int'lup-    [HiriHiriiiij:    '  >  J"     "  i.'-KiKui;,'    tii\».iru.     !>■  suia:; 

itit"  w  IS  tiikcu  iit  jiiiy  fiiiu'ji'  i.^'H-n  I  ;<.  ;»!.  -hkI  .;  p    mi  .  tin- 

:>    wouid   liavf   WtHH  sliiiiiiiu'Mr  >in    J.v  K-ft.     The    -i;it   ui   t!u' 

Uin*  w,ts  tn  lilt-  ri:.'!!t.     T!i'Tl|'ir!i;  >i<l»'  of  i^iiji-rU  ,ii'  ;Ui\  coiilvl 

'.<•  Iiifii  >1k)wii'  ><li'>t!l<l  liavcBHOu  >.n  llic  loft,  aixi  tl.f  shadow -, 

iiic  ntjiit.     T'    >   ;ir<    !h«- ••>-»ts<  .     'I'lii-  pi.'iuv  p!.in">rtinq 

;,.•  ■•I/Mtl.in^.'    rowafiis  Stflt/iii'iixen"   should  show    ihiuiuw^ 

•uiiiiiin  fro!      i-jU:  I    and  <)\tt  flic  riulit.  Jiouldfr 

1^11^  HtfwXipML^-^fwikirii.; 

liiti"  as  it  »h<>'i!d  -how 

jj»jj;-.    ^^^.i^ilti    have   bpcti 

i>.'i\<r.  .-.iiiiuiii'    -nnTSiJ^'  •'  «^"*' 

;i       iJut  i-a  the  ji^'-turt'  iii    ,tiado\v 

.u-  (••■,niiu)iiy,  tilt Ti'fon-.  iHveu  by 

I  ses  ;-  *'it!ier  tiial  lh<-  titlss  wchhu 

5h'  !a»l  j,'<  iiuirK'  or  thai  (he  pHiuri's 

I).- 

ii  apjw^ar  t-i  have  all  lnMni  t^ikcii 

■  \vr\  iu-  atmo.siiheri<!  ruiiditioits  which 

r>  dt^sfi'H'S.      inKs;i_  ^  Hit'  weather  (iurinf^  the  last  rwetity 

'  5,1     J, IV  ji(  il(«'  !'.  iJUriis  "ctenr  and  riii.ii."  "r-j.  ndles.s 


v,e\ 

left      dl'.i.l 
;ir>i>  ( 'ape  <  '1,1  ivu.-i.i 


'   light   side  of 
lust  <}ir>xth 
al!  the  o'>je( 

;e  i)f  ul>je«i 

;  se  tnilii 


■se  p 
d  t.i 


'I  he  pi< 


■L'r.! 

pur^i'i 
<1< 


(lii^!^'^!*'  !'!<'  r<y^'iiv  T 


A;'4'J>^^!'i«^'^'-^'*^ 


>  tB'**"gn'    LI  .llli    linii    III     h 


ff'.'irM    ( 


to 

,ei- 


>.';  aial  ~!>i.  Is  liuatiiU';  iu  a  -tnwi^'  jrtiU  :  luit  tiic  lia^-  iii 

fur-'-  sh*  wt»  op}H»sile  paffes  ^iSHi  and  '294  aiid  4i>j.  ailegeti 

iKt»:i  taken  at  the  same  time,  hiuig  limp  Iii  aij  evideiil 


14.S 


If 


S  w 


'■> 


■»- 


HI 


fl'i  tftr   S,  rth    I'.tl.    J:,-        Di.tc^ernl 


Tf<AIO  ^aitAHIIAflfAlO     '    "'"■"  "'    "*•'"■  rvaLi..>i..s  i,;i   AjiHI  ' 
^^  ai   tiriir       1 


'^•iiM .  ... y..»«n-.v^M««'>4>nV<vA'.4,A.  I|n;-    iii     •    .i.js    |,,r    t|l<     (iiiir    il! 

■■  ■    .    :unl    hiui    fitnxh.il    th.     .  ..,.1),    l.,h<.n.s    fh.TtM.ii 

il>    I'tifij   ivils  u  ha!   In-  liii!   ft,     ■  ■    .  f         1  J 

'"   '"     ""    yt      •  v-   i'>ur  hours:! 

*■    liuati.r.  .«.iM.f  tl„-  TH..  afttljtyinK..ijrft.nK'>iuui  iAKJM. 

-!..»    niati-  l-f-.r,.  «farrii,>'s.,.ithW>;.-.i..  "    •\l...ut  four  M-*i..,^ 
"f  tlu-  7Ui.if  Aprill.'  '..ri,tii,Mirl)iHk-<ti(MM,th. 
,ii.    .\otrl,  I'ol,  ^V,    iJ[a    <.!p|H,s^'  that 


n    >«■ 


.ii-il    iU'iV 


.v.tWUM  I     '■■■  .  Mu-i.  v-eiil  jiito 

^Ji^^'HTv"-     4'*'**'  '■'"■^''  that  to 
'V  ^   \*,  >:;'ist  !i;ne  Uvn 


hl-S   MTl 

111.-.  Hjm>  (uiti  \sH.k  the  ft 

fit'      ii4!<H>S    to    -let     .       W0l^ 

SHk^'H.   \  f^  l\.  h«-  h;ul  jn^uie  his  .  ,,] 

.HM„;  *  ,-.,:,!,:,  Median  bn.i.-  ,«r  j*,.  ^    ^     R^jnu  Lt'-fon 

■**    J'-    '  '  •  ■•    i't*   W«:,l    tnti.  hi.,   !:■!•*  J      :H   ,  ,     \       M    X  1 

■  1  u.r  pn*s«nt  ptirjMis*  ...IJ  \_  Vi/ 

'■  tl   I  j».  ;n.  (  ohii!iJ,i 

over  i.h,   s.'itt,  fTitTi.liaii.t  nt  \*  p.  in. 
ijii;  . 
<  iun 


^'^]iir!^"'^'3g£f 


r*'^^ 


M 


>v('r  thr  UMKit  .-..iTi.}. 


imf^-rj^ilimiBr^^r^ 


♦  I>!»t;r>.m    No.    .5 


^)«i44 


ShadowM 


149 


70th  or  170th  meridian),  the  sun  would  have  been  in  front  of 
him  and  slightly  to  the  right.  He  would  have  been  viewing  the 
shadow  side  of  objects.  The  sun,  however,  as  shown  in  the 
picture  was  in  the  rear  of  the  observer  instead  of  in  the  front. 
If  the  picture  purporting  to  be  "Looking  towards  Behring 
Strait"  was  taken  at  any  time  between  1  a.  m.  and  3  p.  m.,  the 
Sim  would  have  been  shining  from  the  left.  The  sun  in  the 
picture  was  to  the  right.  The  light  side  of  objects  (if  any  could 
have  been  shown)  should  have  been  on  the  left,  and  the  shadows 
on  the  right.  They  are  the  reverse.  The  picture  purporting 
to  be  "Looking  Towards  SpitzLergen"  should  .'how  shadows 
cost  by  light  coming  from  the  rear  and  over  the  right  shoulder. 
The  view,  however,  shows  light  coming  from  the  rear  and  over 
the  left  shoulder.  The  pictiu«  purporting  to  be  "looking 
towards  Cape  Chelyuskin  "  cannot  be  genuine  as  it  should  show 
the  light  side  of  objects,  because  the  sun  would  have  been 
almost  directly  behind  the  observer,  shining  on  his  back  and 
on  all  the  objects  in  front  of  him.  But  in  the  picture  the  shadow 
side  of  objects  is  in  view.  The  testimony,  therefore,  given  by 
these  truthful  shadow  witnesses  is  either  that  the  titles  accom- 
panying these  photographs  are  not  genuine  or  that  the  pictiures 
are  not  what  they  purport  to  be. 

The  pictures  do  not  evt:n  appear  to  have  all  been  taken 
on  the  same  day  or  under  the  atmospheric  conditions  which 
Peary  describes.  He  says  the  weather  during  the  last  twenty 
hours  of  his  stay  at  the  Pole  was  "clear  and  calm,"  "cloudless 
and  flawless. "  This  certaini  v  makes  ideal  weather  for  observa- 
tion purposes,  but  were  the  pictures  which  are  exhibited  in  his 
book  taken  in  such  weather?  Of  the  four  pictures  alleged  to 
have  been  taken  at  the  Pole  only  one  "Toward  Cape  CJi*l- 
yuskin  "  indicates  a  clear  day.  It  is  tiie  only  one  of  all  his  alleged 
polar  pictures  that  shows  a  clear  sky.  As  to  calmness  the  same 
discrepancy  exists.  The  Hog  at  the  summit,  as  shown  opposite 
pages  285  and  291,  is  floating  in  a  strcmg  gale;  but  the  flags  in 
the  pictures  show  n  opposite  pages  290  and  294  and  295,  allied 
to  have  been  taken  at  the  same  time,  hang  limp  in  an  evident 


% — 


150 


Hat  the  Sorth  PoU  Been  Ducovered 


dead  calm.  Th(^  different  conditions  could,  of  course,  exist 
between  the  t  k\Kg  of  the  1'*  nt  pictures;  but  nevertheless, 
they  (linnet  be  checked  with  P»*aiy*s  description. 

Peaty's  two  facsimile  observations*  indicate  that  the 
altitude  of  the  sun  at  Camp  Jessup  was  6*  19'  and  6*  47',  si^ 
7  degrees.  If  he  wire  near  the  Pole,  this  altitude  of  7  degrees 
would  be  approximately  correct  and  would  be  the  altitude  oS  the 
sun  for  practically  all  that  day.  It  would  make  no  difference 
in  which  direction  he  observed  it,  or  at  what  time  of  day  or 
ni^t,  Colimibia  Meridian  time,  Behring  Strait  time,  local  time, 
or  any  other  time  or  on  whatever  meridian  he  observed  it. 
It  was  7  degrees  and  could  have  been  nothing  else.  AU  the 
shadows  cast  on  that  day  at  that  pUce  were  consequently  7 
degree  shadows.  Artists  may  examine  these  pictures  of  Peary's 
and  locate  the  directions  of  the  light  and  the  position  of  the  sun. 
They  will  find,  that  not  a  single  picture  shows  a  7  degree  shadow. 
All  the  photographs  indicate  shadows  ranging  aroimd  SO  degrees. 
This  would  indicate  that  they  were  taken  elsewhere  in  the 
arctic  regions  than  at  the  Pole  and  perhaps  at  a  different  season. 
Diagram  No.  8  shows  shadows  of  both  7  degrees  and  SO  degrees,  t 
It  mdicates  the  nature  of  every  7  degree  shadow  that  should 
appear  on  Peary's  pictures,  where  li^t  and  shade  are  noticeable. 
The  only  distinct  photograph  of  those  alleged  to  have  been  taken 
at  the  Pole  is  the  one  opposite  page  290,  "Looking  towards 
Chelyuskin."  One  need  not  be  an  artist  to  see  that  these 
shadows  are  not  7  di^^rees  but  are  more  nearly  SO  degrees. 

Shadows  are  nature's  witnesses.  They  never  lie  and  they 
testify  on  other  subjects  besides  that  of  altitudes.  In  all  (rf 
Peary's  pictures  most  of  the  shadows  appear  to  be  eliminated; 
but  some  of  Hanson's  photographs  display  distinctly  the  shadows 
of  the  tall  objects.  Careful  examination,  however,  is  rewarded 
by  the  detecti<Mi  of  tell  tale  shadows  in  Peary's  pictures.  In 
the  views  opposite  pages  285,  290,  291,  294  more  of  the 
shadows  seem  to  have  been  obliterated  but  by  close  examinatiqtt 

*Norih  PoU.  Pages  2Si-3. 
tOppoute  Fftge  IM. 


KGINGWAH   8RAIU-HING   THK    IIOUI/.OV    VliH    LAM) 


■:»^tB 


PKAUy    SFAStCHIXU    TllK    ilORIZON    FOR    T.   i,D 

Froin  T'      <■{  Pressure  Ridge  Back  of  Igloos  at  Camp       isup 

The  shadows  in   tiirie  pictures  cannot  be  brought  (,ut  in    a    rcppMluclion.     The 

I>ictures  are  repr.iduced  simply  to  show  their  nature.     Rel>.-re-.;ce  must  be  made  to  the 

..riKinals  m  Pearl's  l"K)k  to  .  Icarly  folluw  the  argument.      Ueprodu'^  from   page   ^98 

Aorth  Volt     by  R     E.  Pi  ary.  ^^ 


\l 


tu' 


Ifcl 


lil 


J:: 

r,.     j! 


I4n 


Skadowt 


151 


and  by  comparing  with  view  chart  No.  8  one  can  see  that 
wherever  the  length  of  shadows  can  be  discerned  they  aie 
approximately  80  degree  shadows.  It  is  singular  also  that  the 
short  shadows  <m  the  fur  clothing  of  the  men  are  so  distinct;  but 
that  on  the  snow  little  is  seen  of  any  shadows,  ^ews  said  to 
have  been  taken  many  degrees  south  from  the  Pole  throw 
distinct  shade  as.  Some  of  the  shadows  in  the  pictures  all^^ 
to  have  beer,  taken  near  the  Pole,  opposite  pages  271  and  986, 
are  quite  distinct  and  are  certainly  of  more  than  7  de^jroes. 
Some  shadows  are  distinct,  others  in  the  same  pictuif  are  evi- 
dently  obliterated  or  "doctored."  If  the  sun  in  the  picture 
"  Toward  Chelyuskin  "  were  but  7  degrees  high,  its  position  would 
likely  be  indicated  in  the  "sky"  of  the  picture  and  by  a  shimmer 
on  the  surface  of  the  ice  and  snow.  The  shadows  in  this 
picture  althou(^  directly  in  front  of  the  observer  do  not  9ippc$t 
to  be  l<nig  enough  for  7  degree  shadows.  Then  too,  tl^  horiion 
in  this  picture  is  distinct  enough  for  observation  puipoMS 
without  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  an  artificial  horiaon.  The 
sun  wherever  this  picture  was  taken,  was  evidently  shining 
brightly.  Why  is  the  sky  in  all  these  four  pictures,  opposite 
page  299  cut  so  few?  Why  are  these  pictures  chqpped  off  so 
near  the  horiaon?  Why  are  they  not  extended  a  little  iiig>^ 
up,  so  that  th^  may  show  a  little  more  of  the  pdar  sky?  Tbe 
pictures  on  tlw  opposite  side  of  the  same  leaf  which  signify 
nothing,  are  ample  enough,  hi^  cnou^.  Fhotognpha  taken 
at  the  North  Pde  are  not  so  plentiful  that  thegr  need  be  so 
scrimped  ttxr  space,  and  made  in  ribbon  form.  A  whole  page 
displaying  a  photognq>h  k>oking  towatds  "Cape  ChelyuMkb" 
would  be  interesting  if  taken  at  the  North  F<^. 

The  sun  in  that  picture  (wherever  it  was  taken)  wasafanost 
directly  in  front  of  the  observer.  If  taken  at  the  North  Pole 
the  sun  woukl  have  been  m  si|^t  in  the  picture  had  the  picbue 
been  extended  upward  a  quarter  oi  an  indi  more.  Hie  sun  was 
less  than  7  degrees  abov*^  the  hcvimn  on  April  6  and  7,  1909. 
There  is  nothing  in  tlie  incture,  however,  to  indicate  that  the 
sun  is  just  clipped  ott.    Neitho*  the  ice,  the  aky  nor  the  dit* 


15t 


Ha9  ike  North  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


ctmible  shadows  indicate  it.  The  novel  sight  of  a  North  Pole 
picture  showing  the  sun  7  degrees  high  would  have  been  in- 
teresting enough  to  warrant  displaying  it.  The  oombinstioii 
would  certfunly  have  been  striking  and  infinitely  interesting, 
more  so  than  anything  else  that  appears  in  the  picture.  Why 
omit  it? 

No  attempt  will  be  made  to  prove  in  detail  that  the  two 
pictures  opposite  page  298*  are  not  genuine,  that  they  were  not 
taken  at  Uie  North  Pole.  Nevertheless,  comments  may  be 
made  as  to  what  they  seem  to  indicate.  The  spy^ass  (or 
telescope)  and  the  fur  clad  men,  present  indicati«ms  tluit  they 
were  photographed  in  an  artist's  studio.  The  ice  sceneiy  may 
be  artificial  or  may  afterwards  have  been  added  thereto.  It  is 
believed  that  all  the  parts  of  that  picture  could  not  have  been 
taken  simultaneously,  that  they  could  not  have  been  taken  in  the 
same  light.  For  instance,  the  lines  of  the  spyglass  with  the 
reflection  of  the  light  upon  it  and  the  fur  clothing,  are  shown 
in  such  distinct  and  minute  details  that  it  would  hardly  seem 
possible  that  they  could  have  been  taken  in  the  same  light  and 
at  the  same  spot  as  the  surrounding  indistinct  scenery.  But  of 
this  one  may  form  his  own  opinion.  Further,  it  is  not  believed 
that  Peary  took  a  S  or  4  foot  spygbss  out  on  the  Pohu*  Sea; 
the  focus  of  which  must  be  very  carefully  adjusted  by  telescc^ 
ing  it  iu  freezing  weather  with  fiur  clad  hands.  Spy-Masses  have 
been  practically  out  of  use  for  50  years  or  since  the  invention  of 
marine  glasses  or  binoculars.  Peary  does  not  mention  that  he 
took  a  spyglass.  It  would  have  seemed  rather  strange  if 
Nansen  or  Amundsen  had  taken  such  an  antiquated  device  as 
a  spyglass  for  use  on  a  sledging  trip. 

A  marine  artist  who  pretends  to  be  an  experimced  seaman, 
but  does  not  have  the  yards  of  his  ship  pn^>eriy  braced,  ot 
the  sheets  correctly  trimmed,  or  the  heeling  of  the  decks  suitable 
to  the  spread  of  canvas,  could  not  dec«ve  a  {MvcUcal  saik>r, 
who  almost  every  hour,  for  years  had  been  constantly  watching, 
or  adjusting  these  things  to  the  varying  winds.    A  sailor  would 

•Nurlh  Pole. 


mmm' 


I 

I 


V- 


'! 


; 


it 


III  ,:t: 


i 


Shadows 


158 


instantly  discover  the  fraud.  No  one  can  be  deceived  by  these 
fraudulent  photographs.  Anyone  who  views  them  can  readily 
observe  that  they  are  the  product  of  an  artist. 

Space  cannot  be  given  here  to  the  details  of  shadows  m 
these  pictures;  it  is  unnecessaiy  and  is  not  within  the  scope  of 
this  chapter.    Anyone  can  examme  them.    The  angle  of  the 
shadow  of  the  man  and  the  sledge  m  the  center  of  the  picture 
opposite  page  285  is  an  illustration  of  what  should  be  shown  by 
all  visible  shadows.    The  purpose  here  is  to  emphasiw;  the  fact 
that  much  more  significance  is  jittached  to  the  uniform  oblitera- 
tion of  shadows  in  all  the  alleged  North  Pole  pictures,  which  is 
so  marked,  than  to  the  few  remaining  indistinctly  seen.    No 
candid  person  can  truthfully  say  that  he  believes  the  picture 
fronting  page  290  caUed  "Looking  towards  Cape  Chelyuskin" 
was  tfken  at  the  same  place,  on  the  same  day,  as  were  the 
pictures  "At  the  North  Pole"  fronting  pages  290-291-294.298, 
because  the  surface  of  the  ice,  the  atmosphere,  the  horizon,  the 
sky,  nature's  witnesses,  would  instantly  confront  and  belie  him. 

Whoever  took,  or  whenever  the  picture  "Looking  toward 
Capo  Chelyuskin"  was  taken,  the  conditions  were  favorable  for 
a  clear,  distinct  impression  way  to  the  horiwii.  Had  the  alleged 
North  Pole  igloo,  the  flags,  the  ice  and  peaks,  and  the  caravan 
been  in  the  front  of  the  camera  then  and  there,  or  had  the  Cape 
Chelyuskin  picture  been  genuine,  the  observer  couW  have  stood 
a  few  feet  farther  back  when  he  took  that  sight  and  have  pre- 
sented to  the  world  today,  and  generations  yet  to  be,  a  different 
unpression  of  the  aUeged  "Magk;  Point,"  "The  goal  of  four 
centuries,"  than  is  effected  by  the  blurred  and  manifestly 
patched  up  daubs  presented. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  even  though  aU  the  photographs 
bad  shown  7  degree  shadows  it  would  have  proved  nothing,  as 
tney  couW  have  been  taken  on  any  morning  or  evening  anywhere 
when  the  sun  was  7  degrees  high.  Nevertheless,  confidence  is 
always  strengthened,  when  looked-for  coincidences  are  found 
to  sustain  and  support  the  aUegations.  But  no  one  wouU 
submit  false  pictures  macaselik»this,ifhehad  genuine  on«a. 


i 


R 
©■ 


. 


I 


il 


fl  ■ 


154 


H(u  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeovered 


These  photographs  were  not,  could  not  have  been,  taken  at  the 
North  Pole  on  April  7,  1909,  in  the  afternoon  between  1  and  S 
p.  m.  ThQT  are  mibmitted  by  Peary  as  evidence  to  show  that 
he  was  at  the  North  Pole,  and  took  them  there.  They  are  good 
evidence  enough  that  he  was  not  there.  These  shadow  witnesses 
testify  in  unmistakable  and  unequivocal  language,  that  they 
were  cast  elsewhere. 


CHAPTER   VI 


PEARY'S  ALLEGED  OBSERVATIONS  NEAR  THE  POLE 

You  who  have  faith  prepare  to  test  it  now,  while  we  con- 
sider Peary's  alleged  astronomical  observations  of  the  sun. 
We  ourselves  may  err,  but  the  sun  whether  it  be  altitude  or 
azimuth  is  without  variati<Mi,  at  the  proper  place,  at  the  proper 
time.  The  ground  on  which  we  stood  when  considering  ice 
conditions,  time  and  speed,  heaved  and  rocked  beneath  our 
feet  like  the  thin  ice  of  the  newly  frozen  water  leads.  But  now 
it  instantly  becomes  steadfast,  for  we  are  dealing  with  nature's 
laws,  which  are  as  inexorable  as  fate  or  death,  and  swifter  far 
than  thought  or  justice.  When  Peary  mentions  the  sun  he 
must  speak  truth,  his  witnesses  must  speak  truth,  for  the  truth 
will  search  them  out. 

Peary  knows  this  and  he  does  not  often  allude  to  th*;  sun. 
He  aUowed  Marvin  and  Bartlett  to  take  the  sun,  as  long  as  they 
were  with  him  "to  save  my  eyes"  he  says,  "for  the  polar  ob- 
servatiims."*  If  these  early  observati<ms  were  wrong,  it  was, 
therefore,  Bartlett  or  Marvin  who  was  at  fault.  Peary's  anxiety 
to  save  his  eyes  seems  rather  unnecessbiy.  Sextants  have 
movable  glass  shades  of  various  colors,  which  hold  the  pictures 
of  the  sun  regardless  of  its  brilliancy  and  reduce  the  light  so 
that  there  is  practically  no  strain  upon  the  eyes.  Henson  says 
of  the  sun  in  high  northern  latitudes,!  "you  can  look  directly 
at  it  without  hurting  the  eyes,  and  there  is  no  warm^Ji  in  its 
rays. "  But  Peaiy  saves  his  eyes.  He  says  that  he  powxially 
took  no  observations  on  the  whole  journey  from  land  out  and 
back,  except  those  which  he  alleges  to  have  taken  at  Camp  No. 
«6  and  at  the  Pole,  where  he  states  that  he  made  18. 

'Marvin  tmJi  t  olnervfttioiu  ud  Bartklt  1,  the  only  obaervationa  recorded 
to  87  degrees  47  minutes. 

\WorUt  Work,  April  1910. 

155 


150 


HoM  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacocered 


nil- 


iijli 

i;! 


•  "! 


II  -  :1 


4  ' 
It 


111. 


f   * 


Nl  '- 


is:  I. 


ill 


Peaiy  publishes  7  pages  of  Marvin's  computations  which, 
having  been  taken  so  far  south,  are  no  evidence  of  Peary's 
reaching  the  Pole.  He  Mily  gives  facsimiles  of  two  of  his  own 
observations,  (April  6  and  April  7  both  at  noon),  lioth  taken 
from  the  same  spot.  These  refer  solely  to  latitude,  there  is  not 
a  Bgaxe  to  show  how  he  obtained  his  longitude.  He  does  not 
publish  a  facsimile  of  the  midnight  latitude  observation  which 
he  says  he  took  in  the  eastern  hemisphere.  These  sample 
facsimile  observations,  however,  are  significant  for  they  do  not 
correspond  with  his  statements.  The  one  taken  on  April  6 
is  intimated  to  be  imperfect,  and  the  other  taken  April  7  is 
declared  by  Peary's  own  witness,  Mitchell,  in  the  hearing  at 
Washington,  to  be  incorrect  in  azimuth  alone  by  some  20 
degrees.*  These  13  alleged  observations  near  the  Pole,  how- 
ever, are  the  only  facts  that  Peary  can  present  as  proofs  of  his 
claims  for  he  saw  no  land  and  made  no  sounding.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  he  would  desire  full  publicity  for  them 
all  if  they  were  true  in  order  to  add  weight  to  his  allegations. 
With  the  information  available,  it  is  impossible  to  make  a 
complete  analysis.  We  can  ex\mine,  hov;ever,  Peary's  state- 
ments and  draw  the  only  possible  conclusion  from  them. 

There  are  three  things  upon  which  a  navigator  relies  when 
he  is  out  of  sight  of  land  and  soundings,  namely  his  ♦ime  pieces, 
his  compass,  and  the  sun.  Peary  says  that  his  travels  on  the 
Arctic  Sea  were  all  on  the  70th  meridian  west,  that  he  did  not 
leave  that  meridian  except  for  slight  necessary  deviations,  and 
excepting  a  few  hours  when  he  cUims  he  was  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  Pole.  The  70th  meridian  runs  through  Cape  Columbia, 
his  point  of  departure  from  land.  Therefore,  the  70th  meridian 
is  designated  by  him  as  Cape  Coluiabia  Meridian,  or  "Columbia 
Meridian."  Peary '8  time  pieces  had  been  set  to  Cdumbia 
Meridian  time.  That  is,  when  it  was  local  noon  on  the  Colum- 
bia Meridian,  it  was  1«  o'clock  by  his  watches,  if  they  kept 
correct  time.  It  will,  therefore,  be  understood  that  if  he 
traveled  directly  north  he  woiild  keep  on  that  meridian  (70 
•Test  P«ge  1S7. 


Peary's  Alleged  Obnervatioru  Near  the  Pole 


157 


degntm  west  longitude)  and  every  day  when  the  sun  reached 
Its  highest  altitude  at  noon,  his  watches  would  show  1«  o'clock 
He  indicates  that  he  used  no  other  clock  Unie  on  his  whole 
journey     but    "Columbia    Meridian    Ume.-     It    necessarily 
follows  that  local  time,  that  is  to  say.  sun  time,  and  his  dock 
time  unti  he  reached  the  Pole,  if  he  kept  on  the  70th  meridian, 
were  at  aU  times  identical.     This  fact  i.  important  to  remember. 
Ail  observation  on  a  known  meridian,  gives  three  things 
l-irst  It  shows  altitude;  second,  it  gives  local  time,  and  deter- 
mines the  correctness  of  the  time  pieces    (if  the  ivatches.  which 
were  set  to  that  meridian  time  show  12  o'clock  when   the  sun 
IS  at  meridian,  they  are  correct,  otherwise  they  are  in  error); 
third.  It  teUs  the  variation  of  the  compass,  as  the  sun  is  true 
south  at  noon.     The  variation  in  degrees  shown  on  the  aiimuth 
'  oinpass  from  indicated  south  is  the  compass  variation      These 
Hiree  things  are  the  beacon  lights  for  a  mariner  on  ,  harted  or 
on  uncharted  seas.    The  method  of  taking  an  observation  is 
.xplained  by  one  author  as  follows:    The  sun  rises  in  the 
forenoon  and  continues  to  rise,  that  is.  it  continues  to  increase 
it«  altitude.    The  observer  with  his  sextant  commences  a  few 
mmutes  before  noon  by  his  watch  to  observe  this  altitude     He 
Uikes  one  observation  and  gets  one  altitude.     That  means  that 
he  f>rui^rs  the  sun  by  his  sextant,  down  to  the  horizxjn.    He  then 
tightens  U,«  thumb  screw  on  the  instrument,  fastens  it  to  that 
altitude,  and  sets  it  aside  for  a  few  moments.     The  sun  rises  a 
little,  hut  IS  not  yet  at  noon.     He  takes  another  observation, 
moves  th.  lunb  of  his  instrument  a  litUe  further  (to  catch  the 
increased  altitude)  until  the  sm.  is  brought  again  to  the  horizon; 
and  so  on  repeatedly  until  near  n«m  when  he  noUces  that  the 
sun  scarcely  nses.     He  then  holds  his  sextant  cr,ntinually  to 
his  eye.  until  the  instant  the  sun  ceases  to  rise.    Then  it  is  local 
noon.    He  tightens  the  screw,  fastens  the  instrument,  and  at 
his  leisure  he  can  read  from  the  face  of  his  sextant  the  exact 
numJxa-  of  degrees,  minutes  and  seconds  of  that  altitude  at 
noon.    This  is  an  observation. 
•Page  u  Tert. 


^^ 


fl 


(.  '     Si 


III     '■ 

m      1: 


mP 


158 


Ilia  the  North  Pole  Been  Dijfrovered 


Ftom  this  obBcrvatiwi  h*-  can,  by  his  books,  calculate  his 
latitude.  He  gets  everything  from  his  book?*,  except  this 
altitude.  He  supplies  no  other  local  data  txcept  aU  .  wpheric 
cmiditions.  It  follows  then ,  tha *  if  the  altitude  from  his  sextant 
shows  him  to  be  in  latitude  89"  67'  north,  at  a  certain  hour  on  a 
certain  date,  he  or  anyone  who  has  the  books  can  reverse  this 
problem  and  show  as  Peary  has  '^bown,  that  on  that  date,  at 
noOT,  anyone  who  is  located  at  89'  57'  north  latitude  must 
have  an  altitude  exactly  corresponding  to  that  shown  on  the 
sextant  by  his  observation.  This  example  of  reversing  the 
problem  is  not  of  great  scientific  moment,  but  is  an  ordinary 
example  of  mathematics.  Anyone,  familiar  with  these  matters, 
who  has  the  books,  can  tell  what  the  altitude  of  the  sun  would 
be  on  a  given  date,  at  local  noon,  in  any  latitude  on  any  longi- 
tude, and  vice  versa,  knowing  the  altitude  of  the  sun,  he  can 
know  his  Utitude.*  In  view  of  the  comparative  simplicity  <rf 
these  matters  it  would  seem  an  easy  thing  for  an  explorer  to 
make  fairly  correct  observations  and  to  keep  his  locations  clear. 

Peary  had  been  traveling  north  on  the  Colimibia  Meridian 
rts.,  70  degrees  west.  He  says  he  took  an  observation  on  April 
6  at  no<Mi,  supposing  that  he  was  on  that  meridian  m  the  vicinity 
of  the  North  Pole.  This  observation  he  says  indicated  that  he 
was  in  latitude  89'  67'  or  three  miles  south  of  the  Pole,  longitude 
70  degrees  west  ("A"  diagram  9).  When  Peary  discovered  his 
position,  he  could  have  kept  on  moving  north  until  he  covered 
the  three  miles;  taking  observations  toward  the  end  of  the 
distance,  until  he  found  that  the  sun's  altitude  in  three  or  more 
directions  was  the  same.  He  would  then  know  he  was  at  the 
Pole.    He  need  go  no  further.    But  what  did  he  do,  or  say  he 

did? 

He  traveled,  so  tho  story  reads  in  an  apparently  aimless 
manner  right  across  the  Pole,  a  distance  of  10  miles;  and  then 
The  ran  at  the  Pole  cirrles  an>imd  the  horizon  at  practically  the  lame 
Altitude  from  whichever  dinvtion  it  is  «l»sr.ed,  and  at  whatever  "Columbia 
Meridian  time"  tii«!  observation  is  taken.  It  is  true,  that  at  the  time  that 
Peary  says  he  was  there,  the  aun  was  gradually  a»w»di.ig;  in  reality  circling  in 
a  great  spiral,  but  the  increasing  declination  fo*  which  allowance  is  ea<iily  made, 
is  M)  infiniteumal  that  it  is  immaterial  in  this  d:ucu«;:^n. 


Peary  a  Alleged  Ohaenationa  Near  the  Pale  150 

at  "iiiiiltii)<iit  Columbia  Meridian  time."  he  made  his  next 
observation,  nnd  found  that  he  had  gone  too  far!  Then  he 
returned  the  whole  distan<*e,  not  7  miles  to  the  Pole,  but  10 
miles  (20  miles  of  travel  lK>th  ways),  to  this  starting  point,  his 
|K>lar  camp  S  miles  from  the  Pole.  Then  he  started  off  again  on 
another  apparently  wild  goose  chase,  in  another  direction  a 
(iisUuice  of  H  miles,  and  returned  to  his  camp  S  miles  "south" 
from  the  Pole,  making  a  march  of  16  miles  more,  traveling  in 
SO  hours  a  total  distance  of  36  miles,  and  this  at  a  time  when, 
and  at  a  place  where,  minutes  even,  would  have  been  precious, 
trying  to  find  the  North  Pole,  which  according  to  his  own  story 
was  in  sight  all  the  time  from  his  camp  where  he  could  have 
stood  right  over  it  in  an  hour  or  so.  This  tale  is  given  to  the 
public,  as  the  procedure  of  an  experienced  naval  officer  of  9A 
years'  standing,  attempting  to  locate  himself  on  the  earth's 
surface.     It  is  worthy  of  a  more  minute  analysis. 

During  the  thirty  hours  when  he  claims  to  have  been  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Pole,  he  says  he  took  but /our  sets  of  observations, 
at  four  different  times  as  follows:  The^rrt,  at  noon  April  6  on 
his  arrival  at  "Camp  Jessup."  The  second,  at  midnight  April 
6-7,  10  miles  beyond  Camp  Jessup  in  the  other  hemisphere. 
The  third,  at  6  a.  m.  April  7  at  Camp  Jessup.  The  fourth,  at 
noon  April  7  at  Camp  Jessup.  It  will  be  seen  that  all  but  <Mie, 
the  midnight  observation,  were  taken  at  Camp  Jessup,  from 
one  spot.  He  says  that  the  weather  was  calm  and  the  sky  was 
clear  during  the  last  twenty  hours  when  he  claims  he  was  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Pole. 

In  those  four  observations  he  viewed  the  sun  in  only  two 
different  directions,  viz.,  south  and  east,  which  makes  a  review 
very  simple.  He  says  that  the  two  noon  observations  (first 
and  fourth)  were  taken  at  Camp  Jessup,  that  in  both  the  sun 
was  viewed  in  the  .s«>uth.  (The  sun  is  always  in  the  south  at 
local  noon  in  northern  latitudes.)  The  "second"  observation 
was  taken  also  when  the  sun  was  south,  hut  to  explain  this 
observati(m  a  little  further,  Peary  says  it  was  taken  ten  miles 
from  Camp  Jessup  and  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere  on  the  110th 


^^m 


MICROCOPY   RESOLUTION   TEST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


^      APPLIED    \M/\GE      Inc 


1653  Eost   Main   Street 

Rochester.    New   York         U609        USA 

(716)   482  -  0300  -Phone 

(716)   288  -  5989  -  Fox 


Kill. 
'■•  ill 


i> 


M 


ir 


160 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


meridian  east,  which  is  the  same  as  the  70th  or  Columbian 
meridian  extended.    This  observation  was  taken  at  midnight. 
(Columbia  time)  or  noon  (local  time).    The  sun  was.  therefore 
north  from  Camp  Jessup,  but  south  from  Peaiy,  at  the  time  the 
aUeged  midnight  observation  was  taken.    We  have  now  shown 
that  the  sun  was  in  the  south  from  the  observer  when  the 
first,      "fourth,"  and   "second"  observations  were  taken 
It  was  east  when  the  "third"  alleged  observation  was  taken  at 
Camp  Jessup  at  6  a.  m.  (C.  M.  T.)  on  the  7th  of  April.*    The 
sun.  therefore,  was  observed  once  in  the  east,  and  three  times  in 
the  south.    We  are  recording  simply  what  Peaiy  says. 

He  says  he  traveled  seven  mUes  beyond  the  Pole,  a  ten 
mile  journey  from  Camp  Jessup  and  arrived  a  little  before 
midnight  at  the  point  where  his  second  observation  was  taken 
He  arrived  before  the  sun  reached  the  meridian,  and  when  it 
became  midnight,  Columbia  Meridian  time,  and  the  sun  was  on 
the  110th  me>  'dian  east,  Peary  took  his  observation,  and  bemg 
hunself  beyond  the  Pole  and  on  the  110th  meridian  east,  the  sun 
was  in  the  south  and  it  was  local  noon  where  he  stood. 

Suppose  at  the  same  moment  that  Peaiy  was  observing  the 
sun  at  midnight  on  the  110th  meridian  east,  that  Henson  who 
was  said  to  have  remained  at  Camp  Jessup  on  the  70th  mer- 
idian west,  (the  Columbia  Meridian)  also  had  observed  it  from 
where  he  stood.  It  is  obvious  that  it  would  be  midnight  with 
the  sun  m  the  north  from  Henson.  and  noon  with  the  sun  in  the 
south  from  Peary,  at  the  same  moment  of  time. 

After  taking  these  observations  at  midnight  Peary  says  he 
retraced  his  steps  across  the  Pole  to  Camp  Jessup  arriving  there 
at  6  a.  m   on  the  7th  of  April.    He  was.  therefore,  six  hours 
returning  from  the  place  where  he  took  his  midnight  observa- 
tions.   Meanwhile  the  sun  was  making  its  journey,  and  in  these 
six  hours  (one  quarter  of  a  day),  it  traveled  one  quarter  round 
the  world,  and  of  course  was  at  that  hour,  east  of  Camp  Jessup 
(If  Camp  Jessup  was  on  the  70th  meridian).    Peaiy  now  takes 
another  observation,  so  he  says,  viewing  the  sun  this  time  in  the 
*See  compass  direction  diagnm  No.  9.    Rige  40. 


Peary's  Alleged  Observcdiotu  Near  the  Pole  161 


east.    This  is  the  only  time  he  viewed  it  in  any  direction  but 
south. 

Peary  says  he  then  took  another  six  hour  journey  directly 
toward  the  sun  (which  was  in  the  east).  He  traveled  8  miles, 
then  retraced  his  steps,  and  without  taking  any  observations 
returned  to  Camp  Jessup,  reaching  there  just  before  noon,  just 
before  the  sun  again  reached  the  70th  meridian.  When  the 
sun  reached  the  Columbia  Meridian  at  noon,  he  took  "a  series 
of  observations"  and  the  sim  was  of  course  in  the  south,  exactly 
where  it  was  24  hours  before,  when  he  took  his  first  observation 
at  noon  of  April  6,  from  the  same  spot. 

One  more  view;  if  Camp  Jessup  was  on  the  70th  meridian, 
it  was  simultaneously  Columbia  noon  and  local  noon.  But  at 
the  so-called  10  mile  camp,  it  was  simultaneously  Columbia 
midnight  by  Peary's  watch,  and  local  noon.  Boston  is  on  the 
70th  meridian  west,  south  of  Camp  Jessup,  Central  China  is  on 
the  110th  meridian  east,  south  of  the  midnight  location.  When 
it  is  noon  at  Boston  it  is  midnight  in  Central  China.  The 
same  relative  conditions  of  noon  and  midnight  apply  to  positions 
within  12  mches  of  the  North  Pole.  It  is  noon  and  midnight 
in  a  circle  of  12  inches  or  less.  But  at  the  pin  point  of  the  North 
Pole  there  are  no  longitudes  and  there  is  no  time.  These  illus- 
trations are  based  upon  the  assumption  that  Peary  was  all  the 
time  on  the  70th  meridian  west,  or  the  70th  meridian  extended 
into  another  hemisphere  or  110th  meridian  east. 

But  nobody  can  tell  from  reading  Peary's  descriptions,  where 
he  intended  Camp  Jessup  to  be  located.  He  says  he  took 
three  different  sets  oi  observations  a  few  hours  apart  on  a 
perfectly  clear  day  in  order  to  obtain  the  exact  location  of 
Camp  Jessup  or  to  ascertain  just  where  he  was.  The  computa- 
tions from  each  series  of  observati<ms,  changed  the  locaticm 
from  the  result  of  the  preceding  set  by  one  hundred  degrees  of 
longitude,  or  more  than  one  quarter  way  around  the  globe. 
Here  they  are  in  condensed  form. 


lli— m       ;     J 


l^f 


162 


■I, 


i 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 

longitude  West 


latitude  North 


Apr.  6  noon    Columbia  Meridian  time  89° 
ST 


Apr.  7  6  a.  m.    Columbia    Meridian    time 
88°  58'  37" 


Apr.  7  noon    Columbia  Meridian  time  89° 
57'  11" 


70°  Cape  Columbia  Meridian 


170°  Behring  Strait  Meridian 


70°  Cape  Columbia  Meridian 


For  purposes  of  further  testing  the  truth  of  these  statements  it 
will  alternately  be  assumed  that  Camp  Jessup  was  at  each  of  the 
locations  mentioned  by  Peary,  and  show  that  it  is  impossible 
to  make  truth  out  of  either  of  his  three  statements. 

First  suppose  Camp  Jessup  to  be  on  the  70th  meridian  in 
accordance  with  the  foUowing  statement,  which  for  convenience 
we  siiaJl  cdl  Peary's  Statement  No.  1*    "At  local  noon  on  tlie 
Columb  a  Meridian  I  made  my  first  observation  at  our  polar 
camp,  which  indicated  our  position  as  89°  57'.  "f      He  further 
says  (same  column)      "I  then  .  .  .  went  on.  an  estimated 
distance  of  ten  miles.     I  was  able  to  get  a  satisfactory  series  of 
observations  at  Columbia  Meridian  midnight."     He  continues: 
When  I  had  taken  my  observation  at  Camp  Jessup  in  the  west 
hemisphere  at  noon  of  April  6.  Columbia  Meridian  time   th- 
sun  had  been  in  the  south.     When  I  had  taken  my  observations 
at  midnight-in  the  eastern  hemisphere  the  sun  was  in  the 
south  at  that  point."    These  clearly  are  the  remarks  of  a 
person  supposing  himself  to  be  on  the  70th  meridian  and  on  the 
70th  mendian  extended  or  110th  meridian  east,  using  70th 
meridian  time.     But  the  next  morning  (on  April  7,  6  a  m  )  he 
makes  another  aUegation  which  we  shaU  call  Statement  No  2  % 
At  Camp  Jessup,  I  took  another  series  of  observations  at 
nght  angles  of  these  previously  made.    These  indicated  our 
position  as  bemg  four  or  five  miles  from  the  Pole  towards 
Behrmg  Strait.    I  then  went  in  the  direction  of  my  observationa 

•Srd  Col.  2nd  Par.  Fkge  168. 

fDiagraia  9, 

t5th  Col.  Fkgc  185. 


Peary'a  Alleged  Obtervatioru  Near  the  Pole  16S 


i< 


< 


H 

i 


en 


en 


I     I 


o 

I 


o 
5? 


en 

I 


>< 

H 


I 


(2 


o 


of 
I 

e. 


I 


:§.Soa| 


mm 


o    q 

JS:g5  wo. 
piM      Sia-a 


§ 


.j^i- 


^  Ml 

r  a-l's-s  a  8  J  J  i-5tf -S 


«   A 


J 


rja 


Is  s 
s  1-5  ^"g  a 


S; 


JJ! 


I 


fs 


-J 


104 


Has  the  North  PoU  Been  Diaeovered 


milrj^ 


III 
ii  illlli 


Peary**  Alleged  Ohaenations  Near  the  Pole  165 


Si 

il: 


H 

I 


I 


S 


9 
S 


S 


I 

n 


•s 


I0 


g 


o 


^-•iilsls.l-S-'gl'^'ll-g^JI    ll^l 

3«>  g-^.i  Sp-S'i  iJJajs'a.i  a2  i  i  i  S  s  I 


§13 


g's® 


••  a 


ill/ 


I  Mil 


^ 


166 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


2  o 


si 


O 


o 


9 

S 


§ 


I 


is 


lint 


_    O    O 

B     -a 
•S  a 

O         v 

°  s  g 

J.L 
-5§ 


III-      P§ 


O 
t 


2 


50  ■W_; 


Pearfi'B  Alleged  Observations  Near  the  Pole  167 


ill 


H 

a 


o 

e: 


o 

«3 


H 


s 


H 

o  a 


3 
S 


o 

■< 
u 

a 


z 

g 

3 

a 


S 


a  1  V  '*  v.S'S  e 
^  «;'5  1.  «  2  2^ 

32222*^  S'g 
«  S  S  S  aS.>  S.S 


a 


a 
.9 

I 

a 


;! 


i^ 
^ 


.a 

•V 

■ 

.a 

a 


8 
I 

.a 

M 

s 

a, 
.9 


^1 


ill 


■Jl! 


168 


Jlaa  the  North  PoU  Been  Discovered 


an  estimated  distance  of  eight  miles."  This  Statement  No.  9 
would  place  the  same  camp  on  the  170th  meridian.  Obviously 
it  is  impossible  for  Camp  Jessup  to  have  been  on  the  meridian 
towards  Cape  Columbia  (the  70th)  and  on  the  meridian  toward 
Behring  Strait  (the  170th)  at  the  same  time.  Peary  had  only 
one  camp,  in  his  story,  Camp  Jessup. 

Suppose  for  the  purpose  of  analyzing  Statement  No.  1, 
that  Camp  Jessup  was  on  the  70th  Meridian  on  April  7,  6  a.  m. 
He  says  he  then :  "  Took  a  series  of  observations  at  right  angles 
to  those  previously  made— and  went  in  the  direction  of  my 
observations  an  estimated  distance  of  eight  miles. "  It  is  obvious 
from  the  description  that  he  must  have  marched  due  east  from 
A*  to  K,  or  away  from  the  Pole  m  an  endeavor  to  cross  it.  Had 
his  camp  in  tnitl-  been  at  .4,  he  would  probably  have  gone  north 
three  miles  to  be  at  90  degrees,  then  if  he  wished  to  cover  more 
territory  in  order  to  allow  for  any  errors,  he  would  have  traversed 
his  8  miles  in  both  directions  from  that  point. 

If  Peary  actuaUy  took  the  observation  that  he  says  he 
took  the  day  before  at  local  noon,  April  6,  and  if  he  had  the 
proper  instruments,  and  found  by  computation  that  he  was  in 
latitude  89»  57'  or  3  miles  from  the  Pole,  he  knew  which  way 
was  south,  and  which  north;  he  knew  that  it  was  noon  and  when 
It  would  be  midnight.     Let  us  analyze  his  Statement  No.  1  sUU 
further.    He  says  the  sun  was  m  the  south  when  he  took  his 
noon  observation,  April  6.    If  it  was  in  the  south  at  noon 
Columbia  Meridian  time  he  was  himself  on  the  Columbia 
Meridian.    He  could  not  be  mistaken  in  this,  even  with  an 
imperfect  observation  as  to  altitude,  for  he  must  have  also 
known  the  local  tune,  direction,  and  compass  variation.     It  is 
folly  for  the  Geographic  Society  to  indicate,  as  they  do,  that  his 
observation  may  not  have  been  accurate  on  the  6th,  for  if  it 
were  not  substantially  accurate,  the  facts  regarding  it  are 
misleading.     If  Peary  was  there  with  his  time  pieces,  his  com- 
passes and  his  eyes,  he  could  not  have  been  mistaken. 

To  fully  impress  his  readers  that  he  was  not  mistaken,  and 
*Diagnuii  8. 


Peary'$  Alleged  ObtervaHotu  Near  the  Pole 


160 


could  not  be  mistaken,  he  says  he  "verified  it,"  and  then 
demonstrates  how  he  did  it.  He  says  he  ''^a^ted  directly 
north  from  "A"  (not  three  miles  to  the  Pole,  but  strangely 
enough  ^0  miles  to  **B")  and  reached  a  point  7  miles  beyond 
the  Pole  in  the  opposite  hemisphere,  i)n  the  opposite  meridian, 
which  would  be  110  degrees  east.  He  gets  there  before  mid- 
night, and  before  the  midnight  sun  gets  there,  and  prepares  for 
a  series  of  observations,  with  a  clear  sky,  calm  weather,  and  at 
midnight  Columbia  Meridian  time,  on  the  6-7th  of  April,  he 
finds  the  sun  exactly  in  the  south  when  it  reaches  that  meridian. 
It  was,  therefore,  local  noon,  thereby  absolutely  "verifying" 
his  previous  noon  observations  at  Camp  Jessup.  The  sun  could 
be  nowhere  else  at  that  time,  in  that  hemisphere,  on  that 
meridian,  but  south.  Could  it  have  been  possible  for  him  to 
have  been  mistaken  in  these  facts,  if  he  actually  observed  them, 
if  he  bad  his  corrected  time,  if  he  had  his  compasses?  He  says 
it  was  a  calm  clear  day  "cloudless  and  flawless."  Anyone 
looking  at  the  diagram,  can  see  that  it  is  a  perfect  description 
of  the  facts  and  events  he  wishes  to  portray.  If  Peary  were 
actually  there,  his  description  is  correct.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  if  he  were  somewhere  else  at  those  times,  at  noon  April 
6  and  midnight  April  6-7,  he  could  not  have  observed  the  things 
that  he  says  he  did  observe.  They  would  not  be  applicable  to 
any  other  time  or  location.  None  of  the  descriptions  wouM  be 
true  if  he  were  not  at  those  places,  at  those  times,  and  traveled 
in  those  directions. 

But  Peaiy  says  he  WAS  NOT  THERE.  Why  he  says  it, 
may  be  conjectured  and  explained,  but  the  fact  that  he  does  say 
it,  cannot  be  denied.  Here  it  is.  Statement  No.  IS  on  page  290 
in  his  book  he  writes :  "  At  6  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  April  7, 
I  ;ving  again  arrived  at  Camp  Jessup,  I  took  another  aeries  of 
observations."  "These  indicated  our  position  as  being  four 
or  five  miles  from  the  Pole,  toward  Behring  Strait."  This 
would  place  him  in  about  latitude  89*  55\  longitude  170  degrees 


ii 

9'' 


170 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Ducovered 


i  i 


wMf  oral    C  tor  100  degr«Hiwe.t  of  the  Columbia  Meridian, 
wherj  he  first  iiaid  he  waa,  in  Statement  No.  1.    Camp  Jeasup 
of  couwe,  did  not  shift  as  a  later  obser^'ation  proves  and  acoord- 
mg  to  his  stoiy  he  had  only  one  polar  camp.    One  can  readily 
understand  how  such  a  discrepancy  can  arise  from  a  mistake 
m  memory;  but  such  a  mistake  would  be  impo«rible  to  occur. 
a»  amtetake  tn  facts  of  obeertaHon.    He  should  have  remembered 
that  an  entirely  different  set  of  descriptions  would  be  necessary 
to  fit  the  new  location,  if  in  fact,  he  was  on  the  170th  meridian. 
mste«l  of  the  70th.    At  noon.  Columbia  Meridian  time,  the 
«un  .s  as  not  m  the  south  on  the  170th  meridian,  but  north  of 
eaat.J    He  could  not  mistake  such  a  fact  as  that.    If  he  had 
gone  on  as  he  says  he  did  "in  the  same  direction"  10  miles  from 
his  camp,  he  wouW.  if  the  camp  was  at  C  have  gone  southwest 
from  C  to  A  not  north,  as  he  has  described  his  maroh  in  State- 
ment No.  1.    His  compass  would  have  shown  this.    Neither 
couW  he  have  gone  north  a  while  and  then  south,  on  that  route, 
as  he  said  he  did  on  the  route  he  took.    His  time  pieces  wouU 
all  have  shown  over  six  hours  out  of  the  way.    Everything 
that  guided  him  would  have  been  out  of  joint.    It  is  impossible 
to  conceive  how  a  person  on  the  spot  could  have  been  so  con- 
fused  without  his  instantiy  detecting  his  errors. 

The  real  incongruity  of  his  assumption  tiiat  Camp  Jessup 
was  on  the  70th  meridian  can  best  be  illustrated  bv  cumbining 
IZu  *^.  fr»°**it*tement  which  locates  Camp  j;ssup  onthe 
170th  meridian.  Suppose  now  tiiat  Camp  Jessup  is  on  tiie  170th 
mendian.  Suppose  Peaiy's  observation  on  tiie  6th  at  noon 
(Columbm  time)  was  as  he  intimates  faulty;  but  tiuit  tiie  series 
tako,  at  6  a.  m.  on  the  7tii  found  tiie  camp  to  be  truUifully 
located  on  the   170tii  meridian,   "towards  Behring  Strait." 

r   m"^^  ,       T  ^""^  ^^  ^""^  *«  *»«  ^^  it  ^^  «t  noon 
^.  M.  1..  from  tiiat  position?    It  would  have    been  nortii  of 

be  M^sV u"""*  «»>«''vation  on  page  862  North  Pole,  shows  the  laUtude  to 
fDiagram  9. 
}See  compass  direction  on  Diagram  9. 


Peary' §  Alleged  Obeervatiotu  Near  the  Pole  171 

ewt.*  If  it  wu  noon  C.  M.  T.  by  hu  time  pieces,  it  wouU  have 
been  5:80  •.  m.  locml  time.  If  b<!  had  "pushed  on"  from  that 
point  "in  th-s  lame  directim,  traveling  an  estimated  distance 
of  ten  miles"  he  would  have  been  marching  teett  aoutk  tesst 
away  from  the  Pole,  in  a  presumed  endeavor  to  find  it.  At  the 
end  of  this  ten  mile  march  at  midnight  C.  M.  T.  he  said  he 
''wnd  the  sun  again  in  the  south.  It  could  not  h--  -  been 
wuth.    It  would  have  been  slightly  south  of  we<i  also 

■ays  that  on  this  ten  miles  march  he  traveled  "pa«  •  s  time 
north  and  part  of  the  time  south,  but  all  the  time  iii  cue  same 
directi'>n. "  He  could  not  have  traveled  a  sinf^e  inch  in  either 
of  tu.!se  two  directions,  but  he  must  have  traveled  south- 
westerly going,  and  north-easterly  returning. 

He  further  says  that  he  took  his  series  of  observati<nis  at 
6.  a.  m.  on  the  7th  at  right  angles  to  those  previously  made. 
This  presents  an  impossible  conglomeration.  If  we  assume  it  to 
be  true  that  Camp  Jessup  was  on  the  170th  meridian,  and 
assume  also  that  his  statement  is  true  that  "when  I  had  taken 
my  observations  at  Camp  Je»-up— at  noon  of  April  6,  Columbia 
Meridian  time  the  sun  had  been  in  the  aouth;"  and  assume  also 
that  now  at  6  a.  m.  the  7th  he  toe  bservations  at  right  angles 
thereto,  he  would  have  marrJied  hi.-  miles  directly  east  towards 
I.f  Even  if  the  sun  is  B<isuTnt  i  to  have  been  south  from  this 
locaticm  at  noon  April  6,  k  frmld  not  possibly  have  been  south 
at  midnight  at  <  <  after  ti,  ten  mile  march.  It  would  have 
been  southwest.!  if,  therefore,  neither  this  location  nor  any 
other  location  can  correspond  to  his  two  statements,  there  is  no 
escaping  the  conclusion  that  both  the  statements  are  in  error. 
It  is  true  that  the  sun  was  in  the  south  at  noon  Columbia 
Meridian  time,  on  the  meridian  of  Cape  Columbia  viz.,  (70 
degrees  west).  But  it  could  not  have  been  in  the  south,  at  the 
particular  instant  at  the  particular  place  where  he  afterwards 
says  he  actually  was,  "on  the  Behring  Strait  meridian,"  viz., 
170  degrees  west,  because  it  was  5:20  a.  m.  (lcx»i  time)  '»Jid  the 

*See  oompaas  direction  Diagram  9. 

fDiacnunS. 


172 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


.      I 


I    $ 


•|    i 


,1      ■!! 


sun  was  then  north  of  east  from  that  point.  It  would  not  be 
south  until  local  noon,  and  it  could  not  be  local  noon  on  the  170th 
meridian  and  local  noon  at  the  70th  meridian  at  the  same 
moment.*    Both  statements  cannot  be  true. 

This  point  may  be  \'iewed  from  still  another  angle.     It  may 
be  assumed,  for  purposes  of  reasonmg,  that  the  sun  was  south 
from  Camp  Jessup  on  the  170th  meridian  when  he  took  his 
noon  observations.     (It  must  be  remembered  constantly  that 
Peary  is  recognizing  the  different  points  of  the  compass,  even 
when  he  is  only  a  short  distance  from  the  Pole),  that  is  to  say, 
that  it  was  local  noon     (Behring  Strait  noon)  not  Columbia 
Meridian  noon.    If  it  was  local  noon,  it  was  6 :40  p.  m.  Columbia 
Meridian  time.    And  if  (continuing  the  presumption)  he  had 
traveled  directly  across  the  Pole  as  he  alleges  he  did,  and  the 
sun  was  in  the  south  when  he  reached  his  farthest  point  at  local 
midnight,  it  would  not  and  could  not  have  been  as  he  says 
"Cohunbia  Meridian  midnight. "    It  would  ha\  e  been  Behring 
Strait  Meridian  midnight,  which  latter  time  he  did  not  carry. 
It  is  impossible  to  be  either  noon  or  midnight,  by  any  one  fixed 
time,  Columbia  Meridian  time,  or  any  other  time,  on  the  70th 
and  170th  meridian  simultaneously. 

Peary's   two   statements   taken   in   connection    with   his 
locations  of  Camp  Jes.sup  and  stripped  of  all  unnecessary  and 
confusing  verbiage,  stand  forth  as  stating  impossibUities.    No 
stretch  of  credulity  or  of  faith,  can  justify  a  belief  that  these 
conflicting  statements  are  facts  of  observation,  that  they  are  a 
record  of  events.    It  must  be,  therefore,  that  when  he  decided 
to  make  the  record  show  Camp  Jessup  as  being  in  the  direction 
of  Behring  Strait,  he  overlooked  the  fact,  that  his  description 
m  Statement  No.  1,  would  all  be  false  as  to  that  location.     Such 
a  glaring  error  cannot  be  accounted  for  m  any  way  except  that 
statement  No.  1  was  an  imaginary  record  of  events.     He  was 
not  there;  could  not  have  been  there;  could  not  have  been  at 
either  place.    These  statements  establish  in  another  way  their 
absurdity  as  they  also  necessarily  include  another  impossibility, 
*DiagTam9. 


Peary*s  Alleged  ObaervaHona  Near  the  Pole  173 


wa.,  that  he  traveled  in  a  direct  course  from  Camp  No.  26  at 
latitude  89°  26',  longitude  70'  west,  to  Camp  No.  27  (Camp 
Jessup)  in  latitude  89°  57'  longitude  nO"  west,  a  distance  of  36 
miles  between  the  two  camps.  And  then  by  "pushing  on  "  and 
extending  this  line  of  travel  10  miles  further,  "in  the  same 
direction, "  that  he  crossed  the  North  Pole,  and  passed  from  one 
hemisphere  into  another.  As  a  matter  of  fact  every  step  he 
took  on  this  alleged  ten  mile  march,  if  Camp  Jessup  were  on  the 
170th  meridian,  would  have  been  a  step  away  from  the  Pole  and 
not  toward  it.*  His  statements  do  not  check  with  one  another, 
do  not  harmonize.     They  are  impossible. 

It  wiU  be  admitted  that  if  he  had  reached  withm  5  or  10 
nules  of  the  Pole,  regardless  of  the  accuracy  of  his  observations. 
It  was  sufficiently  near  to  entitle  him  to  the  glory  of  the  achieve- 
ment.    The  only  question  to  be  considered  is  if  he  actuaUy  was 
there  or  in  that  vicmity,  would  it  be  probable  that  he  would 
make  such  conflicting  and  unnatural  statements  as   these? 
His  elementary  statement  is  true  that  if  one  stands  at  the  Pole, 
all  directions  are  south.    But  to  make  this  technically  right,  he 
must  stand  exactly  at  the  pin  pomt  of  the  Pole.    Peaiy,  of 
course,  did  not  wish  to  imply  that  he  was  on  the  exact  spot 
where  East,  West,  North  and  South  meet.    If  it  were  a  fact 
that  he  really  was  four  or  five  miles  from  the  Pole,  he  might 
be  pardoned  for  assuming  that  he  was  sufficiently  near  to 
warrant  that  floweiy  description,  merging  aU  directions  into 
one,  and  as  being  within  an  author's  latitude;  but  tiiis  is  evident- 
ly not  his  intention. 

He  says  he  started  from  Camp  Jessup  (Camp  No.  27),  went 
directly  north,  and  after  crossing  the  Pole,  went  on  south.  He 
therefore,  assumes  that  which  would  have  been  correct,  that 
there  are  two  directions  in  which  one  must  travel  even  in  those 
few  miles  from  the  Pole.  In  order  to  emphasize  tiiis.  he  says 
when  I  took  the  sun  at  noon  Cdumhia  Meridian  time.  (Camp 
Mo.  27,  Camp  Jewup)  the  sun  was  in  the  south."  Wien  he 
took  It  agam  at  midnight  in  the  opposite  hemisphere,  it  was  again 
'Diagram  9. 


M. 


174 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


i   i 


K    i 


in  the  south.  These  two  statements  are  made  as  being  facts 
of  actual  observation,  and  they  coincide  with  the  statement  that 
he  traveled  on  the  70th  meridian.  But  they  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  the  other  statement  that  Camp  Jessup  was  afterwards 
found  to  be  located  by  a  series  of  observations  "four  or  five 
miles  from  the  Pole,  towards  Behring  Strait"  which  is  on  the 
170th  meridian.  If  the  camp  was  actually  found  to  be  on  the 
170th  meridian,  it  was  there  in  the  beginning.  There  is  where 
it  was  at  the  end,  and  where  it  was  all  the  time  that  he  claims 
he  was  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Pole.  He  only  had  that  one 
camp — "Camp  Jessup." 

One  would  think  that  such  a  tangle  as  results  from  these 
two  statements  was  about  as  bad  as  could  well  be  made;  but 
Peary  shifts  again,  and  makes  it  still  worse,  again  evidently 
forgetting.  The  observations  last  referred  to  were  alleged 
to  have  been  taken  at  6  a.  m.,  April  7.  He  says  he  took  another 
set  at  noon  of  the  same  day.  On  page  190  he  writes:  (after  his 
alleged  8  mile  trip)  "Again  I  return  to  Camp  in  time  for  a 
final  and  completely  satisfactory  series  of  observations,  on  April 
7  at  noon  Columbia  Meridian  time.  .  .  .  These  observa- 
tions gave  results  essentially  the  same  as  those  made  at  the 
same  spot  twenty-four  hours  before."  That  is  to  say,  he  again 
imagines  himself  just  where  he  first  said  he  was  at  the  previous 
noon  April  6,  on  the  Columbia  Meridian  70  degrees  west,  not 
on  the  Behring  Strait  Meridian  170  degrees  west. 

This  is  the  record  exactly  as  Peary  has  written  it.  It  must 
be  conceded  by  any  intelligent  person  that  these  statements 
are  utterly  impossible  of  reconciliation.  Somewhere  in  these 
statements  is  a  falsehood,  and  there  was  only  one  possible  way 
out  of  the  dilemma  to  make  it  plausible.  There  is  in  fact  no 
possible  way  out.  In  only  one  way,  could  an  attempt  be  made 
to  escape  its  force,  and  that  was  to  amend  the  statements,  to  so 
change  them,  as  to  make  them  as  ambiguous  as  possible. 
Such  an  attempt  has  been  made,  but  as  is  usually  the  case, 
conviction  is  made  more  certam.  Peary  risks  it.  Peary  leaves 
out  of  his  book    The  North  Pole  (which  was  published  later 


Peary's  Alleged  Obaermtions  Near  the  Pole  175 


than  his  article  in  HampUnCa,)  Statement  No.  1.  It  is  bodily 
withdrawn.  Daniel  Webster  once  said  of  a  prisoner:  "He 
must  confess  or  commit  suicide,  and  suicide  is  confession." 
The  withdrawal  by  Peary  Statement  No.  1  is  confession.  Two 
falsehoods  do  not  make  one  truth.  It  is  after  all,  two  falsehoods, 
instead  of  one.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  any  reason  why 
Peary  should  omit  this  descriptive  paragraph  if  it  were  true. 
It  is  a  perfect  and  an  important  description  or  recitation.  It 
is  a  description  of  what  he  said  existed,  and  what  he  said  he 
saw  at  the  North  Pole.    Why  omit  it? 

He  must  have  been  told  that  he  must  omit  it.  When  it 
was  read  in  Hampton's  in  August  his  attention  must  have  been 
called  to  its  absimlity,  and  its  incongruity.  He  must  have 
been  reminded  that  no  person  could  make  a  diagram  or  plot  a 
route  to  correspond  with  such  contradictions,  such  impossibil- 
ities. It  is  too  plainly  a  creation  of  events.  Anyway  he  omits 
it,  withdraws  it.  The  members  of  the  National  Gieographic 
Society  then  attempt  to  make  a  map  and  to  plot  a  route 
corresponding  to  the  omission,  and  make  a  statement  just  as 
if  the  omitted  paragraph  had  never  been  Mrritten;  but  with 
fatal  results  as  will  later  be  seen. 

It  is  justifiable,  imder  the  circumstances,  to  assume  that 
Peary  never  intended  to  give  the  public  any  further  information 
than  that  contained  in  his  published  narrative  in  Hampton's. 
He  desired  to  secure  recognition  and  honors,  and  then  rest. 
Under  such  circumstances,  wno  could  ever  dispute  a  plain 
truism  like  Statement  No.  1,  providing  he  kept  all  else  under 
cover?  Congress,  however,  insisted  upon  evidence;  upon  the 
record.  Here  was  a  most  embarrassing  dilenuna,  indeed,  which 
necessarily  involved  in  its  meshes  the  National  Geographic 
Society.  They  must  make  a  diagram  and  plot  a  route  or  be 
forestalled  by  someone  else;  but  a  diagram  and  a  route  without 
eliminating  Statement  No.  1  was  im{x)ssible  for  any  one.    It  was, 

herefore,  eliminated  from  the  book,  and  the  book  was  put  in 
evidence.    Face  this  evidence  sqiuu^ly  just  as  it  was  pre- 

ented,  regarding  these  alleged  observations.    Three  distinct 


176 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


I   * 


if!  I 


sets  of  observations  are  said  to  have  been  taken  12  hours  apart, 
from  one  spot,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  exact 
location  on  the  earth's  surface  of  that  spot.  A  separate  com- 
putation was  made  from  each  observation  by  the  observer 
immediately  after  the  observations  were  taken.  Two  of  these 
three  computations  resulted  in  locating  that  spot  (Camp  Jessup) 
on  the  70th  meridian  west.  The  other  one  resulted  in  locating 
it  on  the  170th  meridian  west.  One  hundred  degrees  of  longi- 
tude apart.  Nearly  one  third  round  the  woild  on  that  Utitude 
(about  89"  55').  Ihis  is  sufficient  to  uncover  the  truth  without 
comment. 

Who  can  say  that  Prof.  GaUe  of  Berlin  is  not  right  in  his 
conclusion  that  "None  of  Peary's  methods  are  reliable.  Even 
if  he  did  reach  the  Pole,  he  wouldn't  know  it. "  Father  Rigge, 
S.  J.,  Professor  of  Astronomy  and  Physics  in  Creighton  Univer- 
sity, Omaha,  says  "From  the  data  furnished  by  Mr.  Peary, 
I  am  wholly  unable  to  map  out  his  journeys  near  the  Pole,  or  to 
locate  him  in  the  various  positions  where  he  says  he  took  his 
oh^oTvaiions. " 

Peary's  two  facsimiles*  refer  to  latitude  only.    Not  a 

scrap  or  a  figure  to  show  how  he  obtained  his  longitude  in 

attemptmg  to  locate  the  camp,  yet  he  says  that  one  set  located 

the  camp  on  the  170th  meridian  of  longitude,  and  the  other 

set  located  it . .    the  70th,  a  difference  of  100  degrees  of  longitude 

or  nearly  half  way  round  the  globe.    This  is  his  first  and  only 

attempt  on  the  journey  to  locate  a  camp.f    What  the  rest  of 

the  alleged  13  observations  would  show  had  the  public  been 

permitted  to  see  them  may  be  conjectured.    Whether  170  or 

70  degrees  is  the  truth  or  whether  either  of  these  is  correct 

cannot  be  known,  as  all  the  computations  are  suppressed. 

Nothing  is  offered  but  assertions.    His  own  judges,  sponsors 

and  witnesses  at  the  hearing  in  Washington  testified  as  will  be 

shown  that  he  was  wrong  in  both  locations;  that  these  observa- 

*Nortk  Pale,  Pages  «92,  S. 

fn  m!^!*'/k*""ii**'  i^^  discrepancies  must  be  made  m  degrees  of  longitude 
to  meet  the  al  egations.  But  100  degrees  longitude  5  mUes  from  the  Pole  is 
only  about  6  miles  in  actual  distance. 


Peary's  AUfistd  ObsenaiUms  Near  the  Pole  177 

tions  when  correctly  computed  make  the  location  of  that  camp 
on  the  lS7th  meridian  west.  That  is  to  say,  that  the  nearest 
they  could  locate  the  canp  to  any  of  Peary's  wandering  loca- 
tions, was  S3  degrees  from  the  nearest  one,  and  67  degrees  from 
the  other. 

In  <t  previous  chapter  it  was  shown  how  Henson's  narra- 
tives diflfer  from  Peary's  as  to  statement  of  the  same  facts. 
Here  it  is  seen  that  Henson's  comments  an  "observations" 
show  a  still  greater  discrepancy,  if  it  be  possible,  because  they 
emphatically  contradict  Peary.*  Henson  says  and  repeats, 
that  no  observations  were  taken  in  the  fiv  iiaiches  north  of 
Bartlett  Camp  or  until  noon  of  the  7th.  Peary  says  distinctly 
that  he  took  four;  one  on  April  5,  making  the  latitude  89'  25' 
another  on  April  6  at  noon  at  latitude  89°  57',  one  at  midnight 
6th,  one  at  6  a.  m.,  7th.  Henson  says  on  April  6:  "There  was 
a  dense  mist  hang-'  -^  over  ev3rything.  The  sun  being  obscured 
by  the  mist,  it  was  iitvposrlble  to  make  observations. "  Henson 
:Jso  says  the  first  obsenration  (on  the  "^th,  noon,  not  the  6th) 
located  the  North  Pole  "just  behind  our  igloos."  Here  are 
both  Peary's  and  Henson's  statements  on  the  siVbject  in  parallel 
columns. 


TABLE  X 


OBSERVATIONS 


HKNaON 


Apr.  5,  "Ettimaimg  the  distance  we 
had  come  during  the  last 
HttmjHon'*  t  days,  we  Quoted  that  un- 
Apr.  1910  less  something  happened 
during  the  course  of  this 
day,  we  should  be  at  the 
Pole  before  its  close. 

He  made  no  observa- 
tions in  the  5  da^s.  Mere- 
ly knew  we  had  1S2  miles 
to  gc.  He  repeats  no  ob- 
servations were  taken." 


PBABT 


Ap-A  K.         "Fearing  a  cloud  bank  at 
the   south   might   mean 
Page  284,     thidc  weathr     >'>.  the  M 
"North        lowing  day,  would 

PM'  prevent  an  rvation, 
I  U>ok  a  latUade  ligKi. 
This  indicated  our  posi- 
tion to  be  89**  U'  or  S5 
miles  from  the  Pole.  I 
determined  to  make  the 
next  carap  in  time  for  a 
noon  oftMrfolion." 


•Table  No.  10. 


II 


I- Si 


178 


Hat  Ike  North  Pole  Been  Diacomed 


HENBON 


Apr.  6 

Hampton's 
Apr.  1010 


**We  crawled  out  of  our 
igloos  and  found  a  dense 
mist  hanging  over  every- 
thing. O^ly  at  intervals 
when  the  suns  rays  man- 
aged to  penetrate  the  mist 
could  we  catLh  a  glimpse 
of  the  sky. 

"The  sun  being  obscuivd 
by  the  mist,  it  was  invpot- 
nble  to  make  obternaiioru  to 
tell  whether  or  not  we  had 
reached  the  Pole,  so  the 
only  thing  to  do  was  to 
crawl  into  our  igloos  and 
go  to  sleep.  He  made  no 
obtervationt  in  Ihef.ve  days. 
He  merely  knew  that  we 
had  1S2  miles  to  go,  and 
he  tuppoied  that  we  could 
nearly  make  it  in  the  five 
days  of  marching. 

On  the  following  morn- 
ing (the  7th  not  Uie  6th 
Ed.)  Commander  Peary 
set  out  with  two  Esldmos 
and  one  sledge  with  a  tin 
of  pemmican  and  instru- 
ments, leaving  me  repair- 
ing a  sledge  and  in  cluirge 
of  the  camp." 

"In  about  an  hour  the 
Commander  returned.  I 
can  make  observations  but 
of  course  I  did  not  meddle 
at  this  time. 

"I  said  to  Peary  'if  we 
have  traveled  in  the  right 
direction,  we  are  now  at 
the  Pole.  If  we  have  not 
traveled  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, then  it  is  your  own 
fault.'  "  Again  Henson 
a-\y«:  "No  observations 
were  taken." 

"Upon  his  return  'in  an 
hour  Peary  ordered  out  a 
pole  consisting  of  a  long 
hoe  handle  to  hold  up  an 
American  flag." 


PKABT 


Apr.  «,  "  ■  hout  10  o'clock  I  calle  d 
a  halt.  At  local  noon  on 
Hampton*  the  Columbia  Meridian  I 
Au^.  1910  made  my  first  observa- 
tion at  the  polar  camp 
named  the  Morris  K. 
Jessup  camp,  which  in- 
liicated  our  position  as 
89°  iT.  :  turned  in  for 
a  few  hours  sleep. 

"I  turned  out  icobein 
readiness  for  an  observa- 
tion at  6  p.  m.  Columbia 
Meridian  time,  in  case 
the  skies  should  clear. 
Unfortunately  it  was  over- 
cast; but  as  there  were 
indications  that  it  would 
clear  before  long,  I  start- 
ed out  with  my  two  men, 
Egingwah  and  Sigloo.  and 
a  light  sledge  carrying 
only  my  instruments,  a 
tin  of  pemmican,  drawn 
by  a  double  team  of  dogs 
and  went  on  an  estimated 
distance  of  ten  milei." 


"It  had  cleared  whUe 
we  were  traveling  and  at 
the  end  of  the  journey, 
1  was  able  to  get  a  satis- 
factory eerie*  of  observa- 
tions at  Columbia  mid- 
night, which  observation* 
indicated  our  position  aa 
being  beyond  the  pole. 

"When  I  had  taken  my 
observations  at  Camp 
Jessup  in  the  western 
hemisphere  at  noon,  Apr. 
6,  Columbia  Meridun 
time,  the  sun  had  been 
in  the  South. 

"When  I  had  taken  my 
observations  at  midnight 
between  the  6th  and  7th 


PMiry'«  Attsged  Olaenoiiotta  Near  the  P6U  179 


BBNBON 


PB&ST 


at  the  end  (rf  my  ten  mOe 
much  in  the  Eastern 
hemiq>here,  the  sun  ma 
in  tL  South  at  that 
pomt,  but  to  those  at  the 
camp  on  the  other  tide 
of  tne  world,  onl^  ten 
mikt  away,  it  was  m  the 
North." 


Apr.  7  "The    sim  was  shining 

brightly  in  the  morning  m 

Hamjfton't    Apr.  7,  when  we  crawled 

Apr.  1910     out  of  our  igloos  and  tem- 

gsrature   was   33   below, 
zpectation  was  written 
on  every  face  for  we  knew 
observations  could  be  tak- 
en at  noon  and  we  should 
at  last  know  whether  we 
had  reached  the  goal. 
"The  Commander  waited 
with  impatience  for   the 
hour  of  noor  to  arrive  and 
then  began  to  take  obser^ 
vations.        These      were 
made   at   three   different 
points  and  while  Ite  was 
.wafcing  Jiia  calculations  we 
were  detailed  to  reconnoi> 
tre  in  diSerent  directions 
for  tb'j  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining if  any  land  could 
be  seen.  The  mult  of  the 
first  observations  showed 
that  we    had  figured  out 
the  distance  very  accur- 
atdy  for  when  the  flag  was 
hoisted  over  the  geograph- 
ical centre  of   the  earth, 
it  was  k>cated  juit  bekmd 
our  inloot.    Observations 
taken   bter   in   the   day 
showed     that     the     flag 
should   be  placed   about 
leOyardt  to  the  wutward 
of  tk($  first  potilion  on  ae- 
eouni    of    the     amtinwd 
tattward  drift  of  the  ice. 
The  Eskimos  showed  their 


Apr.  7  "6  a.  m.  I  took  a  series 

of  observations  at  right 
Bampton'$  angles  to  those  previous- 
Aug.  1910  ly  made,  lliese  obser- 
vations indicated  our 
position  as  being  four  or 
five  miles  f  om  the  Pole 
kneardt  Bekring  Strait. 
Then  with  a  double  team 
of  dogs,  a  light  sledge, 
and  Ootah  uid  Enng- 
wah,  I  went  in  the  direc- 
tion of  my  firit  observa- 
tions an  estimated  dis- 
tance of  eight  miles. 

"I  returned  to  Camp 
again  in  time  for  a^  final 
and  satisfactory  series  of 
observations  at  Columbia 
noon  on  the  7th  which 
gave  results  essentially 
the  same  as  my  observa- 
tions 24  hours  previous. 
"I  had  now  taken  18 
single  or  6H  double  alti- 
tucws  of  the  sun  at  two 
different  stations  in  three 
different  directions  at 
four  different  times,  etc., 
and  had  traversed  in  vari- 
ous directions  an  area  of 
about  8  to  10  miles 
acrcos." 


180 


H(u  the  North  Pale  Been  Diaeotered 


HKNBON 


delight  by  jumping  around 
and  exclaiming  "Tmg- 
noi^h-tima  Ketiaher,* 
which  meant  'We  have 
reached  here  at  last. ' 
i»«"I  suppoM  if  the  truth 
werej^known,  their  rejoic- 
ing WBa  not  becauae  we  had 
leached  the  North  Pole, 
bttt  becauM  we  had  arrived 
at  the  pUce  from  which 
we  would  start  back  for 
home." 


PEAKT 


Apr.  6  Hensun  says  that  they 

and  stayed  in  camp  taking  ob- 

Apr.  7  aervations  for   S4  hours, 

and  that  Peary  was  ab- 
sent but  one  hour  (on  the 
morning  of  the  7th).  He 
also  sava  that  when  they 
crawled  out  of  their  igloos 
on  the  mommg  of  the  7th, 
the  sun  was  ■hming  bright- 
ly implying  c^arly  that 
they  were  sleeping  on  the 
nighl  of  the  «th. 


Apr.  6 

Pkgeje89 

North 


Peary   says   they  left 
camp  with  a  party  at  6  p. 
m.  and  went  10  mi]<M  un- 
til midnight,  and  returned 
to   camp  at  6  a.  m.  on 
the  7th.    In  other  words 
he  was  out  traveling  all 
night  and  made  90  miles. 
He  then  says  he  went  out 
in   another   direction    8 
miles  returning  in  time 
for  a  noon  observation  at 
camp,  (18  miles  more). 
Then  4  p.  m.  after  an 
ineffectual    attempt    to 
sleep,  he  started  south 
and   reached  camp   No. 
i«  "in  good  time"  (8« 
miles    more).     In    other 
words,    he    traveled    all 
the  time  (except  from  12 
to  4  on  the  7tfa)  from  S 
p.  m.  on  the  eth  to  the 
evening  of  the  7th,  and 
without  sleep.    Yet  Hen- 
son  says  he  wan  absent 
on  the  morning  of  the 
7th  "one  hour. '^ 


Peary'a  Alleged  Obtervaiiona  Near  tiie  Pole 


181 


Peary  says  the  camp  was  at  89°  57',  that  the  Pole  was  three 
miles  away,  not  right  behind  the  igloos,  and  that  it  was  located 
on  April  6  at  noon,  not  at  noon  of  the  7th.  Enough  spa  e  is 
already  given  to  this  illustration,  to  demonstrate  the  unreliabil- 
ity of  the  information  presented,  and  to  establish  the  fact,  that 
one  or  the  other,  at  least,  is  wrong  from  beginning  to  end. 
Which  is  it?    This  may  apiiear. 

Henson's  version  as  to  observations  is  entirely  consistent. 
He  not  only  says  in  two  places,  in  describing  other  matters,  that 
no  observations  were  taken  until  noon  of  the  7th  the  day  after 
they  reached  the  Pole,  but  also  in  describing  the  weather  on  the 
6th,  and  the  impatience  of  the  party  to  ascertain  the  location, 
he  says  a  dense  mist  prevented  the  taking  of  observations,  so 
there  was  nothing  to  do  but  to  crawl  into  the  igloos  and  go  to 
sleep. 

Now  read  in  comparison  Peary's  statement.  He  says  in  his 
first  published  narrative,*  copyrighted  in  the  magazines,  that 
on  the  Sib  march,  (April  6)  "In  12  hours  we  made  40  miles, "  or 
from  89"  25''.  In  the  next  sentence,  he  says  "I  had  now  made 
my  five  marches,  and  was  in  time  for  a  hasty  "noon"  observa- 
tion which  indicated  our  position  as  89"  57'.  He  obviously  did 
not  observe  the  discrepancy  in  those  two  sentences,  which  dis- 
crepancy is  evidence,  if  not  proof,  that  he  took  no  observation, 
because  if  he  had  actually  taken  the  observation,  and  found  he 
was  at  89°  57',  he  would  see  at  a  glance  that  the  distance 
traveled  that  day  from  89°  25'  was  32  miles,  providing  he  was 
on  the  same  meridian  and  had  taken  an  observation  the  day 
before  and  found  his  latitude  then  to  have  been  89°  25'.  It 
would  not  check  out  with  any  other  figure.  It  is  evident  that 
Peaiy  did  not  take  the  sun  on  the  5th,  or  on  the  6th,  as  he  said 
he  did — ^wherever  he  may  have  been.  Observations  of  the  sun 
would  have  been  his  only  means  of  knowing  his  true  position — 
all  else  is  guess-work — ^make-shifts — estimates.  If  he  had  taken 
the  sun  the  day  before,  April  5,  at  noon  which  made  his  location 
89°  25'  and  had  now  noon  (April  6)  agiun  taken  it  and  found  his 
*OutU>ok  Sept.  18.  1909. 


I 


1' 


ffTfSi/ 


189 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


u:.^ 


location  89»  57',  there  would  have  been  just  82  minutes  (or  nau- 
tical miles)  distance  between  the  two  points.  He  would 
have  known  that.  He  would  not  have  "estimated  "  or  suesied 
either  "40"  or  "about  80." 

The  Peary  Arctic  Club  or  the  Geographic  Society  must 
have  called  Peaiy's  attention  to  this  Upse,  for  anyone  can  see 
that  the  two  entries  would  not  have  been  made  in  a  diaiy,  with 
the  latitudes  before  him,  if  he  had  his  latitude  and  knew  just 
where  he  was  at  noon  April  6  and  knew  where  he  was  the  day 
before  at  noon;  he  could  make  no  mistake  as  to  the  distance 
between  the  two  camps.    The  fact  seems  to  be  that  the  notation 
of  an  "obeemation,"  wm  an  after-thought,  and  made  for  the 
purpose  of  squaring  with  later  transactions.    This  is  proven  by 
Peary  himself,  obviously  after  it  was  detected.    In  the  later 
Hampton  pubUcation,    he  changed  his  former  statement,  and 
says,  "When  we  had  traveled,  I  esHmtted  a  good  15  miles,  we 
halted,  made  tea,  ate  lunch  and  rested  the  dogs.    Then  we  went 
on  another  'ESTIMATED'  15  mUes."    "In  U  hours  actual 
traveling,  we  covered  at  LEAST  80  MILES. "    This  correction 
corroborates  Heuson  not  only  as  to  distance,  but  that  the 
distance  was  "ESTIMATED;"  and  was  not  knoum  by  any 
observatunu.    This  change  in  the  number  of  miles,  from  40  to 
80,  is  not  only  -xn  admission  of  the  wrong  in  the  first  statement, 
but  appears  a.^  as  an  admission  that  no  observations  were 
taken. 

Henson  says,  "Riding  one  cannot  so  well  judge  distances." 
This  frank  remark  unconsciously  and  reliably  determines  two 
thmgs.  First,  that  Peary  rode  most  of  the  way  on  the  sledges 
and  second,  that  he  took  no  observations  on  that  day,  because 
one  would  not  "judge"  distances  if  he  had  observations  before 
him.  Observations  for  latitude  determine  the  latitude.  Esti- 
mation of  distances  is  only  made  for  dead  reckoning  purposes— 
when  no  observations  are  possible— or  are  resorted  to  between 
observations.  The  fact  that  both  Pcaiy  and  Henson  made 
estimates  in  their  diary  (or  log)  of  the  distance  traveled  on  the 
5th  between  the  aUeged  Camp  No.  86  and  No.  87  is  evidence 


Peafy*$  Alleged  ObeervaHotu  Near  the  Pote  188 


enough  that  no  obaervation  wm  taken  at  Camp  No.  JM  or  at 
Camp  No.  27  on  arrival  or  at  noon  of  the  6th.  But  coupled 
with  Henson's  direct  statemeiit  that  no  observations  were  taken 
on  those  dates— and  Peary's  "guess"  that  the  distance  was  40 
miles—  then  afterward  changing  it  to  80  miles— saying  it  was  an 
"eatimaU,"  is  convincing  evidence  that  no  obt«rvations  were 
taken. 

In  Peary's  first  published  story  in  Hampbm'e  Maganne, 
August  and  September  1910,  before  opportunity  was  afforded 
him  for  suitable  revision  of  his  statements  in  order  to  make 
them  accord  with  scientific  facts,  he  falls  into  some  of  the  same 
errors  that  Henson  does.    He  wrote  then  and  repeated  it,  of 
his  hope  of  reaching  the  Pole  m  time  for  a  noon  observation. 
Then  in  reaching  there  he  was  in  time  for  a  "noon  observation. " 
This  expressicm  about  the  arrival  of  "noon"  at  the  Pole,  souuda 
odd  commg  from  one  who  had  actually  been  there;  for  if  actually 
there,  he  would  at  once  realise  that  there  it.  no  other  time  but 
"noon."    There  could  be  no  waiting  for  it.    There  couU  be 
no  observations  taken  at  any  other  time.    The  sun  at  the  Pole 
circles  around  the  horizon  at  practically  the  same  altitude  from 
whichever  direction  it  is  observed,  and  at  whatever  "Columbia 
Meridian  time"  the  observation  is  taken.    It  is  true,  as  before 
stated  that  at  the  time  that  Peary  says  he  was  there,  the  sun  was 
gradually  ascending,  in  reaUty  circling  in  a  great  spiral,  but  the 
increasing  declination  for  which  aUowance  is  easily  made,  is  so 
infinitesimal  that  it  is  immaterial  in  this  discussion.    This  error 
in  expression  was  detected.    In  the  Uter  Hampton  publica- 
tions, and  in  Peary's  book,  he  corrects  aU  aUusions  to  the  subject 
by  adding  to  each  sentence  after  the  woid  "noon "in  profuse 
repetition  "Columbia  Meridian  time."    This  correction  does 
in  fact  alter  the  meaning  of  the  sentence,  but  it  is  a  confession 
or  an  admission  that  the  first  draft  was  a  thoughtless  one.    It 
is  still  meaningless  under  the  peculiar  circumstances.    One 
would  as  likely,  if  he  were  wAually  there,  say  he  took  an  observa- 
tion  at  day  break;  or  as  soon  as  it  was  daylight;  when  it  is  known 
that  it  is  daylight  all  the  time  and  noon  all  the  time. 


184 


Htu  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeovered 


f  -i 


m  I 


Henson  says  no  observations  were  taken  at  Camp  No.  M 
or  anywhere  on  the  route  from  Bartlett  Camp  to  Camp  No.  87 
(Camp  Jessup),  that  none  was  taken  even  at  Camp  No.  87  untU 
the  next  day  after  arrival  or  mitil  noon  April  7;  that  Peary  was 
absent  from  the  camp  hut  one  hour  during  all  their  stay 
(wherever  they  were  on  those  days  of  April  6  and  7).  Peary 
presents  as  evidence  of  his  visit  to  the  Pole  this  cor  ''lomeration 
of  absurdities  and  impossibilities.  He  says  he  was  .  >nt  from 
tJie  camp  for  18  hours;  traveled  right  across  the  Pole  from  one 
hemisphere  to  the  other;  and  foimd  the  sun  in  the  south  at  both 
ends  of  his  journey,  and  then  took  another  jaunt  of  8  miles  and 
back  going  in  still  another  direction.  Henson  tells  of  what  he 
saw,  and  what  he  thought  he  knew.  But  what  is  Peary  telling? 
Which  story  is  the  most  reasonable,  the  most  believable,  the 
most  sensible? 

Among  other  thmgs  in  his  article  Worlds  Work,  April 
1910,  Henson  gave  a  description  of  the  inovemeni  of  the  sun  as 
follows:  "It  was  one  continuous  period  of  daylight,  and  there 
was  never  a  time  when  the  sun  was  not  above  the  horizon. 
We  could  see  it  at  any  hour  of  the  'day  or  night'  unless 
it  happened  to  be  obscured  by  the  light  clouds.  Perhaps  I 
ought  to  add  that  the  sim  in  that  latitude  does  not  cross  the  sky 
by  traveling  overhead.  It  goes  around  the  horizcm  in  a  circle, 
starting  low  doum  and  gradually  rising  for  a  little  distance,  and 
then  sinking  back  toward  the  horizon,  but  never  reaching  it. 
You  can  look  directly  at  it  without  hurting  ;he  eyes,  and  there 
is  no  warmth  in  its  rays  at  all. "  This  has  no  special  significance 
as  a  description  except  hi  its  local  application.  But  it  is 
significant  in  what  it  omits.  It  is  a  perfectly  i  j'^ntal  description 
of  the  movement  of  the  sun  over  the  Arctic  Zone  south  of  the  Pole, 
during  the  portion  of  time  in  the  long  Arctic  day,  when  the 
midnight  Sun  swings  above  the  northern  horizon  (or  when  it 
does  not  set  below  the  horizon).  Henson's  description  is  not, 
however,  either  new  or  novel  and  is  of  no  special  interest  to  the 
reader,  as  to  that,  special  "dash."  This  peculiar  movement  of 
the  sun  in  high  latitudes  had  been  noticed  and  described  by 


Ptaryt  Alleged  OheenaHone  Near  the  Pole  ISA 


thousandii  of  observers  before  Henson  was  bom.  Henson  had 
himself  witnessed  it  continually  in  many  years  before,  in  his 
long  service  in  the  Arctic.  It  is.  therefore,  manifest  and  ob^-ous, 
that  had  he  on  this  trip  noticed  any  unusual  phenomenon  never 
iHjfore  witnessed  by  human  eyes,  he  would  have  described  that 
phenomenon— and  not  something  comparatively  commonpbce 
that  applied  as  weU  to  Cape  Columbia  or  Etah,  or  Spitsbergen 
as  to  any  place  on  the  dash,  except  at  the  North  Pole. 

The  significant  point  is  that  he  did  not  describe  the  move- 
ment  of  the  sun  as  it  would  have  appeared  to  him  had  he  been 
at  the  North  Pole.    Had  he  been  there,  he  would  have  described 
It  as  he  saw  it  there,  not  as  he  saw  it  at  Camp  BarUett,  or  south 
of  Camp  BarUett  or  as  he  had  seen  it  in  other  years.    Henaon 
no  doubt  was  told  that  he  was  at  the  North  Pole.    Possibly 
he  beheved  he  was  there.    But  this  peculiar  description  of  the 
movement  of  the  sun  and  the  omission  of  a  proper  North  Pole 
description  is  evidence,  and  good  evidence,  as  far  as  it  goes, 
that  he  was  not  at  the  North  Pole.    Had  he  been  at  the  North 
Pole,  he  would  have  noticed  a  phenomenon,  which  he  surely 
would  have  described  as  being  something  never  before  described 
from  personal  observation,  by  mortal  man.    It  would  have  been 
an  unprecedented  honor  and  distmcti     .    The  sun  at  the  North 
Pole  on  April  6  and  7, 1909,  circled  around  the  sky  horieontally, 
equidistant  above  the  horizon,  paraUel  to  it  every  hou%  in  its 
daily  circuit.    Its  distance  above  the  horiaon  was  about  7 
degrees,  (a  distance,   equal   perhaps   to   12  or   14   times   its 
diameter).    The  phenomenon  would  have  been  so  noticeable 
and  so  strange  being  constantly  before  hhn  for  80  hours,  that 
It  would  have  attracted  his  attention-^  nothing  else  would 
have  attracted  it,  whUe  there,  or  could  have  attracted  it  had  he 
been  there.    It  was  the  only  noticeable  natural  phenomenon  at 
the  Pole.    Would  he  omit  it  in  a  description  of  the  movement 
of  the  sun?    He  was  d-scribing  a  "dash"  to  the  North  Pole- 
yet  his  description  of  the  sun  appUes  to  its  movements  elsewhere 
—and  not  at  the  North  Pole.    That  is  what  constitutes  the 
significance. 


%-\ 


■'  -.'^ 


#■ 


1 


186 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


It??: 


It  is  risky  for  novices  to  touch  upon  natural  laws.  Peaiy 
avoided  doing  so  in  every  possible  way.  But  when  the  time 
arrived  when  he  must  say  something  to  show  he  had  been  to  the 
Pole — he  is  as  vague,  mysterious  and  as  indefinite  as  language 
will  permit— yet  he  fatally  blimdered  after  all  in  his  first  des- 
cription, as  will  later  on  be  seen.  Such  a  lapse  on  the  part  of 
Peary  is  a  blimder.  Not  so  with  Henson.  It  is  imsophistica- 
tion.  Had  the  relations  between  Henson  and  Peary  at  that 
time  been  such  that  the  former  could  have  consulted  the  latter, 
Pe;iy  would  undoubtedly  have  told  Henson  to  "let  the  sun 
alone,  don't  fool  with  it. "  "You  will  get  your  foot  in  it  if  you 
do."  "Describe  anything  else" — "water,  ice,  sky,  weather, 
going,  dogs,  ambidextrous  feats,  anything  but  the  sun. "  "  You 
should  "-lOtice  that  I  let  the  sun  severely  alone  in  my  book, 
excepting  in  a  brief  way  where  it  was  necessary  to  explain  my 
alleged  observations. " 

Having  minutely  reviewed  Peary's  and  Henson's  records 
we  are  familiar  with  Peary's  observations;  with  his  method  of 
knowing  his  time,  and  the  direction  of  the  sun  with  reference 
to  the  two  places  from  which  he  says  he  observed  it,  diuing  his 
allied  stay  of  SO  hours  at  the  Pole.  We  are  now  prepared, 
having  these  salient  facts  in  mind  to  analyze  this  record  in 
connection  with  Mitchell's  dia{;ram,*  which  was  o£Pered  as 
evidence  before  the  Congressional  Committee  presumably  by 
Tittmann,  a  member  of  the  committee  of  the  National  Geo- 
graphic Society,  or  rather  it  was  made  by  his  employees  and 
vouched  for  by  him. 

Years  have  elapsed  since  Peary's  alleged  visit  to  the  Pole, 
affording  ample  time  for  correction  and  yet  no  one  can  tell 
within  100  degrees  of  longitude  where  Peary  wishes  to  have 
Camp  Jessup  located.  As  if  this  plotting  of  a  stoiy  by  Peaty  did 
not  present  a  case  sufficiently  ludicrous,  Mr.  Tittmann,  one  of 
the  three  judges  who  passed  on  Peary's  claims,  vouches  to  the 
Congressional  committee  for  a  diagram  and  a  plotting  of  Peaiy's 
route,*  made  he  says  by  his  employees  Mitchell  and  Duval, 
*Diagnun  U. 


f)! 


i-rcj  ■ 


thr  r 


1   w 


*9^J^^SSSSi£^^^^ 


"■■■  '     ■'■■■)■■      ■■■•       ■'     ■'|||;41  I 


•    r  ,  .i!  .,  ■-.:h  -f  map  um!  pluttnii.-  NH.  n       (>t„.  is  },J,-.,..^.i  .,,,.,  ,.„ 

.      !  -.         ■utii-^   ,mj  .fntnist,-  may  Ik-  [.Imniv  sp«-n.     Ti:i    <|.,!!.".i 

-tti    XhtrhWin  l„.,-s  (fmm  Hiasmin  Nm.  1 1  ;"    The  sro<H.t}i   Hn«H 

.        rii^ram    N...    «!       If    „   dif?i.„lt   in   tr^k.    ....n|MI».s    .hm.fu.n.s  <n,.r 

•  .IL-,  ..  i    -.,  »,,j,.par  .■..rmtly-.n  u  -inl  shwl  a-  th<-y  im-  on  rh.^  ^|..!>...     Uuf 

-^  lear  «■.  ura.y  .-an  !h-  obtained  lo  illiistrnJ*-  hen-  ^hf  sHiiots  .lcsm-d 


n 


inl       IU<    ■!    I.lj.l  lilll         f    H 


■>      hi.-,    t-ll   .)ii>^  f. 


L.I         <         II  ;        . 


'i)l.i^'r*J:,    1 1, 


Peary's  Alleged  Observations  Near  the  Pole  187 


professional  computers  who  "agree  to  a  minute"  and  find  from 
Peaiy's  alleged  observations,  that  Camp  Jessup  should  be 
located  at  Latitude  89»  55'  23"  and  Longitude  187-  west,  or 
33  degrees  of  longitude  from  the  nearest  of  Peaiy's  locations,  and 
67  degrees  of  longitude  from  his  farthest. 

Tittmann  or  Peary  had  to  present  a  diagram  and  a  plottmg 
of  a  route  or  be  forestalled  by  others  and  the  decision  of  the 
judges  discredited.  He  could  not  make  a  plot  from  Peaiy's 
imagmary  locations— nobody  can;  it  presents  too  rough  a  sea  to 
navigate  on.  But  Tittmann  is  a  geographer  of  distinction  and 
learning,  and  he  knows  where  the  North  Pole  was  on  April  6 
and  7, 1909.  In  order,  therefore,  to  have  at  least  one  of  Peaiy's 
alleged  lines  of  march  cross  near  the  Pole,  he  knew  where 
Camp  Jessup  must  be  located.  This  was  smooth  sailing.  This 
plot  was  therefore  drawn,  and  Camp  Jessup  located,  for  the 
truth  of  history,  at  latitude  89°  55'  23"  north,  and  longitude 
137°  west,  notwithstanding  the  astonishing  fact  that  not  a  line 
or  a  single  figure  ever  published  by  Peary  justifies  such  a  loca- 
tion. Data  were  evidently  manufactiu^d  for  the  purpose. 
This  not  only  required  daring,  but  unscrupulous  audacity. 

When  Mitchell  found  that  it  was  impossible  to  plot  a 
route  from  the  data  furnished  by  Peary,  he  should,  instead  of 
manufacturing  suitable  data,  havo  advised  the  public  of  the 
truth.  However,  Mitchell  cabnl^  .  oncludes  his  comments  in 
wTiting  "that  it  is  possible  that  the  march  of  April  7,  1909, 
carried  Peary  even  within  a  stone's  throw  of  that  magic  point— 
the  North  Pole."  But  Mitchell,  of  course,  is  only  an  instru- 
ment in  consummating  this  iniquity.  Those  responsible  for  it 
are  Peary  and  the  members  of  the  Geographic  Society.  How- 
ever, Mitchell's  testimony  is  interesting,  and  throws  light  on  the 
situation.  It  is,  therefore,  quoted  here  verbatim  from  the 
records  of  the  committee  on  Naval  Affairs— (Sub-committee  on 
Private  Bills).* 

•Published  in  Government  Pamphlets, 
o  i^Sl^iPi'/J*?"  ^*-  *"  "  *  composite  chart  composed  of  diagrams  No. 
\l  .u'!*'^"  8  diagram  or  map  and  plotting  No.  11.  One  is  placed  over  the 
other  that  the  ducrepancies  and  contrasts  may  be  plably  seen.  The  dotted 
lines  represent  Mit^ll's  bnes  (from  diagram  No.  11.)  The  smooth  lines 
represent  diagram  No.  9.  It  is  difficult  to  make  compass  directions  over 
long  distances  appear  correcUyon  a  flat  sheet  as  they  are  on  the  globe.  But 
sufficient  accuracy  can  be  obtamed  to  iUustimte  here  tbe  pdnU  demed 


1? 


m  \ 


188 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovured 


m 


•  Mr.  Englebright.— 'Did  you  make  this  diagram?'* 

"Mr.  Mitchell.— 'Mt.  Duvall  made  it;  I  verified  it.' 

"  Mr.  Englebright.— Hsive  you  had  the  data  of  Mr.  Peary's 
observations  near  the  Pole?' 

''Mr.  Mitchell.— 'Yes  Sir.' 

"Mr.  Englebright.— 'Mr.  Peary  made  a  statement  before 
this  committee  that  he  made  no  longitude  observations,  that 
he  made  the  statement  that  on  April  6,  he  made  an  observation 
at  Camp  Jessup,  that  he  made  an  observation  ten  miles  farther, 
then  came  back  and  made  observations  at  Camp  Jessup,  two 
different  observations  six  hours  apart.  On  careful  analysis  of 
Uiose  observations,  from  careful  computations  made,  could  you 
determine  his  latitude  and  longitude  from  those  observations? 
Mr.  Mitchell.— 'From  the  two  observations  six  hours 
apart  I  could  determine  both  the  latitude  and  longitude  ' 

"Mr.  Englebright.— 'Did  you  do  so?' 

"Mr.  MitcheU.— 'That  is  plotted  there  and  'abeled;  the  point 
marked  Camp  Jessup  is  the  result  of  that  computation,  a  com- 
putation of  the  two  sets  of  observations  on  the  morning  of  the 
7th,  one  at  6:40  o'clock  and  the  other  at  12:40,  Columbia 
Meridian  time,  f 

"Mr.  Englebright— I  have  a  document  here  in  writing,  some 
remarks  made  by  you,  giving  the  calculations  and  figures,  with 
your  name  and  your  report.     Did  you  make  that  (indicating)  ?' 

"Mr.  Mitchell. — 'Yes  Sir.' 

"Mr.  Englebright.— 'I  offer  this  as  part  of  the  record.'  " 

(The  paper  referred  to  is  in  part  as  follows:) 


Observations  by  Peary  at  Camp  Jessup.  A  snapshot  of 
the  sun,  a  single  altitude  of  one  limb,  was  obtained  on  April  6, 
when  the  sun  was  on  meridian  67^  west.  The  principal  value 
of  this  observation  is  to  check  the  observations  of  the  next  day, 
Apnl  7,  when  two  complete  sets  of  observations  were  obtamed, 
SIX  hours  apart  in  time,  and  giving  a  good  determination  of  the 
geographic  position  of  Camp  Jessup.  as  follows:  Latitude  89» 
55'  23";  Long.  137°  00'  west, 

XT  *u  n^i*  P'^^  ^^'"P  •^^^"P  '^^  ^  geographic  miles  from  the 
^orth  Pole.    This  latitude  is  not  sensitive  to  errors  of  the  clock 

*Du^p«m  11. 

tit  will  be  noticed  on  next  page  of  the  testimony  that  he  says  it  was  sixtieth 
mendian  tune,  not  "Columbia  (70th)  meridian  time." 


l',,ini'.->    .illpgcl    Otis   rrdtinH..     ,V, 


.  >     int      V 


\m 


jv  mt 

If 

ri' 

m:>{ 

•h 

fiT 

t 

in 

1)!M. 

-.1 

rr 

. 

>\ 

lllor; 

t 

-Uier 

t.i!. 

11 

'f. 

1^- 

u 

•   Uu- 

•xr 

t'l 

V 

.  1  t'. 

Hi: 

u 

• 

> 

k' 

f.^s 


r, 


■er..N,,/./        H.u  •    ..1,  hiu'  )h-  .ir.la  ..f  Mr.  War 


f>  all  •!.,  -,T  -..t' 


an  fij!  an.tiyst--  of 
•  •iil.j  j-K 

In-,.. 

1*       ■   X      i'lUiM" 


f  ,     .itl'.'ii.   .'l    v-.v 


f.  .!!'n<  > 


*i!ai;i''-.i  Ml)  /, p.rit  t 
Tltf<  prih-  ip;ii  vjil'ii- 
'■  ii.>  (■!  ill)'  ;ii>xt  lia'- 
..lioiT-  won--  ui.f.4iiif(: 

0\V^.-    j..,tit!!<J('    Sf> 


■tiisior  y  t'ln!  he  .ia.^  .  il  was  i-utu-tt ' 
isi,  iinii.  ' 


Peary*a  Alleged  OhsenatUma  Near  the  Pole  189 

TOirection  of  ten  minutes  changing  the  latitude  by  5"  or  6" 
Errors  of  observation  in  measuring  altitude,  while  entering  more 
strongly  into  the  result,  are  apt  to  work  against  one  another  and 
ramimize  their  combined  effect.  It  is  probable  that  this  position 
IS  not  in  error  by  more  than  two  geographic  miles. 

After  taking  the  observations  at  noon  of  the  6th  at  Camp 
Jessup  the  expedition  marched  straight  ahead  ten  geographic 

"^aI^^  ^H•^^^'  °^  «^!«^^^t'«»«  on  the  sun.  the  timi  bein:,' 
midnight,  (sixtieth)  meridian  (west)  time.  This  line  of  travel 
has  been  plotted,  assuming  thai  its  direction  is  directly  opposite 
iothedxrectwn  of  the  sun  when  the  noonsight  of  April  6,  was  ob- 
tained Assummg  a  longitude  from  the  plotting  made,  and 
computing  the  latitude  from  the  observations,  we  get  the  latitude 
of  point  of  observations  of  April  6.  midnight  equal  to  89'  49' 
which  may  be  in  doubt  by  as  much  as  three  miles.  This  agrees 
satisfa^only  with  89"  50i^'  which  was  scaled  off  the  map. 
fj,„f  r  T  ™°™"^g  o{  the  7th.  when  observations  showed 
that  Camp  Jessup  was  probably  in  the  direction  of  Behring  Sea 
from  the  Pole  a  march  of  eight  miles  was  made  in  the  dir^tion 
of  the  sun,  under  the  belief  it  was  directly  over  the  Pole.  Com- 
putations of  the  aziniuth  of  the  sun  at  tSe  time  of  observation 
(6.40  H.  m.)  showed,  however,  that  it  wu.  20»  to  the  right  of  the 
u       'iu  X  n    ™®  **'  ^^"^^  "^^  plotted  accordingly.    This 

ofTe  NnlKT^.P'^'^f  V*^  ^'^^  *•«  geographic  miles 
of  the  North  Pole,  and  when  we  consider  that  the  errors  of 
position  may  have  amounted  to  as  much  as  two  miles,  and  that 
he  chances  are  even  for  these  errors  being  in  any  one  direction 
Anril  ?"?2l^^'  "  '?jrr''^^  *''**  the  mart^h  of  the  forenoon  of 
n^^  '  ^'  ^rSr"^.P*«'y  eyen  ^thin  a  stone's  throw  of  that 
magic  pomt— The  North  Pole." 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Hugh  C.  Mitchell. 
This  ambiguous  letter  of  MitcheU's  is  offered  to  prove  that 
Peary's  statements  are  verified  and  are  true,  when  as  a  matter  of 
fact  It  contradicts  them  aU.  MitcheU  says  that  all  three  obser- 
vations  give  "a  good  determination  of  the  geographic  position 
of  Camp  Jessup  as  follows  " :  "  Latitude  89»  55'  23"  "  "  Longi- 
tude 137"  00'  west."  If  his  object  was  to  enlighten  CongrL 
and  not  to  deceive  it,  why  did  he  not  then  say,  as  a  truthful 
candid  witness  would  have  said,  "We  found  Peaiy's  statement 
and  computations  valueless,  and  totaUy  unreliable?"    Why 


iv 


i 


190 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecovered 


did  he  not  say:  "Peary  used  the  identical  data  that  we  used, 
and  found  on  two  different  occasions  by  two  separate  observa- 
tions at  the  same  place,  noon  (6th  of  April)  and  noon  (7th  of 
April)  that  he  was  on  the  70th  meridian,  instead  of  the  lS7th 
as  we  find  him,  or  67  degrees  east  from  where  we  prove  his  own 
observations  locate  him.  On  one  other  occasion,  tfiz.,  at  6  a.  m., 
April  7,  Peary  using  the  identical  observation  that  we  used, 
found  himself  by  his  computation  to  be  en  the  170th  meridian 
west  or  38  degrees  the  other  way  from  where  we  show  the. 
Camp  really  was;  and  at  midnight,  using  the  same  observation 
that  we  used,  placed  himself  by  his  computation  on  the  110th 
meridian  east,  whereas,  we  found  him  to  be  on  the  140th  meri- 
dian east  or  SO  degrees  away,  and  that  with  two  sets  of  observa- 
tions taken  by  him  on  a  calm  day  within  six  hours  apart,  with 
a  bright  sun,  he  could  not  get  them  to  agree  within  100  degrees 
of  longitude;  that  neither  are  correct,  and  we  consider  such 
representations  and  such  data  absolutely  worthless. " 

The  reason  he  did  not  say  these  things  was  because  his 
purpose  obviously  was  to  bolster  a  false  decision  which  the 
Committee  of  the  Greographic  Society  had  made.  Could  a 
committee  of  honest  men,  could  impartial  judges,  have  reported 
favorably  on  the  claims  of  anyone  who  submitted  such  con- 
tradictory and  obviously  fabricated  statements?  Would  the 
Copenhagen  University  have  done  it?  Would  astronomers  of 
integrity  have  done  it? 

References  to  Diagrams  9  and  11  will  explain  the  three 

different  locations  of  Camp  Jessup  according  to  both  Peaty  and 

Mitchell.     Peary's  statement  No.  1  locates  Camp  Jessup  at  A.* 

His  10  miles  march  brought  him  at  midnight  to  B.    The  end  of 

his  8  mile  march  at  K.    When  he  afterwards  decided  that 

the  camp  was  actually  on  the  Behring  Sea  meridian,  it  was 

then  relocated  at  C,  and  the  10  mile  march  brought  him  to  D, 

at  midnight  and  his  subsequent  8  mile  march  to  E.    Mitchell 

locates  the  alleged  camp  at  Ff,  and  the  end  of  the  10  mile  inarch 

'Diagram  9. 
fDiagram   11. 


Peary's  Alleged  Obtervaiiona  Near  the  Pole  191 


at  G,  and  the  end  of  the  8  mile  march  at  H.  This  makes  three 
different  locations  for  Camp  Jessup,  three  different  locations  for 
the  end  of  the  midnight  10  mile  march,  and  three  different 
locations  for  the  end  of  the  8  mile  march.* 

Peaiy  says  that  when  he  observed  the  sun  at  "A"  at  noon 
April  6  and  again  from  the  same  spot  at  noon  April  7  both  by 
Columbia  Meridian  time,  it  was  south  in  both  instances  and 
that  it  was  on  the  70th  meridian,  and  when  he  again  observed 
it  at  midnight  of  the  6th  and  7th  at  the  end  of  his  10  mile  march 
(at  "B")  it  was  south  from  that  point,  and  that  the  midnight 
series  of  observations  at  "B"  checked  up  and  verified  the 
accuracy  of  the  previous  noon  observations  at  "A." 

Mitchell  testifies  that  Peary  was  on  the  lS7th  meridianf 
at  noon  April  6  and  at  noon  April  7,  and  that  the  sun  at  that 
moment  was  on  the  67j^  meridian  west  instead  of  on  the 
Columbia  Meridian  (70°  west).  The  sun  would  have  been  in 
that  event  69^  degrees  EAST  of  SOUTH  viewed  from  "F" 
and  even  if  it  had  been  viewed  from  "A"  instead  of  "F"  it 
would  have  been  in  that  event  2H  degrees  east  of  south.  Grant- 
ing for  purposes  of  illustration  that  the  sun  could  have  been  on 
the  67H  meridian  west  at  noon  (or  11 :80  C.  M.  T)  it  must  then 
have  been  directly  opposite  to  the  67^  meridian  at  11:30 
midnight  C.  M.  T.  which  would  heve  placed  it  on  the  11«H 
meridian  degrees  east. 

These  conflicting  opinions  place  the  sun  at  the  same  mo- 
ment over  two  disputed  meridians  (67^  and  70)  and  if  it  were 
possible  to  view  it  on  each  meridian  at  the  same  time  and  from 
the  three  disputed  locations  of  Camp  Jessup  from  whence  it  is 
alleged  to  have  been  viewed,  it  would  have  been  shining  from 
six  different  directions  at  noon  and  from  six  different  directions 
at  midnight.  It  may  seem  strange  that  such  an  incongruity 
can  exist  in  a  public  document.  It  would  also  seem  that  no 
further  comment   need   be   made.     But   truth   demands   it, 

•This  is  shown  on  the  composite  chart  No.  10  which  chart  is  chart  11  and 
9  super-imposed. 

t"F"  Diagram  11. 


102 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecovered 


histoiy  demands  it.  An  attempt  wiU  be  made  to  show  that  in 
MitcheU's  statemen*.  there  is  scarcely  one  truthful  utterance; 
and  that  m  his  plotting  eveiy  line  of  traverse  is  counterfeit 
The  false  aUeged  position  of  the  sun  and  its  direction  at  the 
different  hours,  is  so  interwoven  by  MitcheU  and  Peaiy  with 
the  location  of  the  different  camps  and  the  different  marches 
that  It  IS  somewhat  difficult  to  present  each  phase  separately' 
and  discuss  it  without  repetition.  But  an  endeavor  will  bi 
made  to  show  at  least  the  cause  of  the  incongruity. 

FIRST  take  the  tinu.    Peary  says  he  carried  Columbia 
Mendinn  time  (70th  Meridian  west)  and  Uiat  all  of  his  alleged 
observations  near  the  Pole,  whetiier  made  at  noon,  midnight, 
or  at  6  a.  m..  were  taken  by  Columbia  Meridian  time.    MitcheU 
in  his  testimony  says:*    "The  pomt  marked  Camp  Jessup  is 
the  result  of  that  computation,  a  computation  of  two  sets  of 
observations  on  the  morning  of  tiie  7Ui,  one  at  6:40  o'clock 
and    the  other  at  12:10  Columbia  Meridian  time."    So  far 
Peary  and  Mitchell  botii  testify,  that  Columbia  Meridian  time 
was  the  actual  time  used.    But  Mitchell  in  Uie  statement  quoted 
herembefore  m  every  reference  to  tiie  time  except  in  his  first 
paragraph  calls  it  60th  meridian  time  (west). 

The  fact  Uiat  the  facsimile  observations  that  are  published 

i"*.  ?^^  ^^^  '*^°''  '^^  *'"*  °'  **^8  ^^^  to  correspond  to 
Mitchell  s  time,  indicates  tiiat  they  have  been  changed  to  - 
justify  Uiese  computations,  because  Peary  in  his  writings  and 
in  his  testimony  always  has  said  tiiat  his  alleged  observations 
were  taken  at  noon  Columbia  Meridian  time  (not  12:40)   and 
6  a.  m.  Columbia  Meridian  time  (not  6:40).    There  is  not  one 
instance  where  he  has  said  he  used  tiie  time  shown  in  tiie  aUeged 
facsimiles.     In  view  of  tiiese  facts,  how  is  it  possible  to  explain 
the  discrepancy  between  Peary's  uniform  representation  and 
Uie  alleged  facsimile  observations  which  correspond  to  MitcheU's 
computations,  and  which  produce  a  different  location  for  Camp 
Jessup  by  over  30  degrees  of  longitude  from  where  l*eaiy  says  it 
wflsr 

•Testimony,  Page  136. 


Peary't  AlUged  Observations  Near  iht  PoU  193 


The  questions  are: 

First:  Would  Peary  be  likely  to  write  in  his  book,  that  he 
took  the  sun  at  "noon"  April  7,  (Columbia  Meridian  time) 
and  then  make  a  facsimile  on  another  page  of  the  same  book 
(«9«)  showing  that  the  same  observat'on  was  taken  "12:40 
p.  m."  instead  of  "noon?" 

Second:  But  even  if  this  one  error  were  possible,  would  he 
repeat  identically  the  same  kind  of  error,  in  the  only  other 
facsimile  in  the  same  book,  covering  the  only  other  "»ioon" 
observation,  that  he  alleges  to  have  made  while  near  the  Pole? 

Would  he  be  likely  to  write  in  his  book  or  in  his  diary  that 
he  also  took  the  sun  at  "n.)on"  April  6  (Columbia  Meridian 
time)  and  then  make  a  facsimile  on  another  page  of  the  same 
book  (362)  that  this  observation  was  taken  on  April  6  "12JJ0 
p.  ni."  instead  of  "noon?" 

Would  he  have  written  in  his  diary  the  word  "NOON" 
on  two  succeeding  days,  and  then  write  12:50  p.  m.  on  one  of 
those  days  ♦'  represent  that  same  moment  "noon"  for  that 
day,  or  would  he  write  12:40  p.  m.  on  the  next  day  to  represent 
that  same  moment  "noon"  for  that  day  when  each  entry  on 
each  day,  was  intended  to  covci  tue  same  identical  moment 
that  "noon"  for  that  day  represented? 

The  significant  and  astonishing  feature,  however,  is  that 
while  these  two  facsimiles  both  belie  what  Peary  has  himself 
written,  they  both  singularly  agree  with  Mitchell's  false  assump- 
tions. 

The  natural  question  is  "  Who  prepared  these  ttDO  facsimiles 
of  observations?"  Was  it  Peary,  whose  every  word  on  the 
subject  belies  them  both,  or  was  it  possibly  these  honorable, 
expert,  rocking-chair  geographers,  with  whose  false  figures  both 
facsimiles  exactly  correspond? 


IM 


Has  the  North  Pole  Bun  Ducovered 


s  ■  ■- 


W  '" 


TABLE  XI 

TaBLB  SrOWINO  the  PABMCATinN  IM  THE  IIODIM  AMD  TlMB  U»ID  ET 

MiTi'HCLL. 


PEART 

MITCHELL 

Date 

Hour 

Time  Uwd 

Hour 

TimeUaed 

6th 

19:00  nooa 

70th  Mer.  time 

lt:00  noon 

60th  Mer.  tioM 

«th 

If  :00  midnight 

70th  Mer.  time 

12:00  midnight 

60th  Mer.  time 

7th 

8:00  A.  M. 

70th  Mer.  time 
C.  M.  T. 

6:40  A.  M. 

70th  Mer.  time 
C.  M.  T. 

7th 

li:00  noon 

70th  Mer.  time    18:40  P.  M.          70th  Mer.  time 
<^    M- T.  _                                        C.  M.T. 

Notwithstanding  Peary's  statements  as  shown  in  the  above 
table  the  two  facsimile  observations  exhibited  in  his  book  are 
as  follows: 


6tr 


7th 


1«:«0  P7W. 


1«:40  P.  M. 


■''0th  Me'- time  I  TOw  1«:50  h  clearly  60th  mendiaiT 
C.  M.  T.         time,  with  •  chronometer  correc- 
tion of  10'. 


'Oth  Mer.  time    This  1«  :40  is  clesriy  60th  meridian 


C.  M.  T. 


time. 


Peary's  statements  in  his  book  contradict  his  alleged 
facsimiles,  and  Mitchell's  concoctions  disagree  with  everything 
in  Peary's  record.  More  space  cannot  be  devoted  to  this 
subject.  It  is  hoped  that  astronomers,  or  navigators  will  take 
it  up,  and  exhibit  its  incongruities  to  the  public,  from  many 
angles,  which  cannot  be  undertaken  here. 

As  to  the  sun:  Peaiy  says  that  when  he  viewed  the  sun 
at  noon  April  6  C.  M.  T.  it  was  south,  that  it  was  on  the  70th 
meridian  west.  Mitchell  says  in  his  statement:  "A  snapshot 
of  the  sun,  a  single  altitude  of  one  limb  was  obtained  on  April 
6,  when  the  sun  was  on  the  67^  meridian  west, "  and  in  the  same 
sentence  he  says  (of  the  location  of  the  observer)  "that  the  geo- 
graphical position  of  Camp  Jessup  was  Latitude  89"  55'  23" 
Longitude  137»  00'  west."  Therefore,  according  to  Mitcheu! 
the  direction  of  the  sun  (if  on  the  meridian  67J^»  west)  at 


Peary* s  AlUged  Obtervatiotu  Sear  the  Pole 


\95 


the  time  the  observation  waa  taken,  was  not  eotUh  but  69^^'  eatt 
of  aouth,  and  cou  lequently  Peary  would  have  erred  in  compaM 
direction  to  that  extent,  69J^*. 

But  Mitchell  does  not  himself  stick  to  this  position  long. 
If  the  sun  was  on  the  67H  meridian  west  at  18:80  sixtieth 
meridian  time  (which  is  the  only  time  it  could  be  there),  and  if 
as  Mitchell  says  "The  expedition  marched  straight  ahead  10 
geographical  miles  and  took  a  set  of  observations  of  the  sun,  the 
time  Iwing  midnight  sixtieth  meridian  time,"  then  Peary  would 
have  found  the  sun  at  midnight  exactly  opposite  to  the  67V$ 
meridian  west,  which  is  the  1  li^i  meridian  east.  But  Mitchell's 
plot  locates  Peary  at  that  moment  on  the  140th  meridian  east, 
which  is  27 J^  degrees  from  the  11«V^  meridian  where  his  state- 
ment would  locate  him,  and  is  SO  degrees  from  the  110th 
meridian,  where  Peary  said  it  was. 

This  shows  that  Mitchell  accepts  a  part  of  a  paragraph  in 
Peary's  statement  No.  1  as  being  true,  viz.,  that  "he  traveled 
10  miles  straight  ahead, "  but  rejects  (or  suppresses  the  rest  of 
the  same  paragraph)  as  being  untrue,  viz.,  that  the  observatiMis 
were  taken  at  midnight  70th  meridian  time,  and  that  the  sun 
was  in  the  south  wh«i  Peary  viewed  it.  This  is  garbling. 
Mitchell  knew  tlia't  the  suu  could  not  have  been  south  at  the 
end  of  the  route  as  plotted  by  him  at  "G,"  even  by  his  own 
selected  time,  of  the  60th  meridian,  or  his  own  false  location  of 
the  Sim,  on  the  67J^  meridian  at  noon.  Hence  he  suppressed 
that  part  of  the  Peary's  paragraph.  A  more  offensive  act  can 
hardly  be  imagined  than  when  Tittmann,  through  Mitchell, 
garbles  Peary's  statement  No.  1  to  sustair  his  own  false  position. 

Statement  No.  1  contains  certain  statistical  and  technical 
data  which  must  be  considered  as  a  whole  exactly  as  written  in 
order  to  grasp  its  meaning  and  purport.  It  is  in  brief  and  in 
effect,  I  will  repeat,  that  Peary  took  an  observation  of  the  sun  at 
noon  Columbia  Meridian  (70)  tune,  that  the  sun,  when  he 
observed  it,  was  in  the  south.  He  then  pushed  on  (in  the  same 
direction  in  which  he  came)  10  miles  further  into  another 
hemisphere.    In  doing  so  he  explains  that  he  traveled  due 


.(•^^SSb* 


196 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


i 


■VS5  - 


north  part  of  the  way  and  due  south  part  of  the  wav,  yet  going 
m  the  same  direction  aU  the  time.    That,  at  the  end  of  the  ten- 
mile  journey  at  midnight  he  again  observed  the  sun  and  that 
It  was  then  again  in  the  south.    This  statement  No.  1  of  these 
facts  of  observation  with  these  compass  directions  are  only 
applicable  to  that  one  identical  place  and  time,  to  that  one 
route  only.     Nowhere  else  on  the  earth's  surface  is  it  applicable. 
Now  observe  Mitchell's  ingenious  work  at  garbling  and 
his  plotting  of  a  false  route.    He  first  detaches  from  the  text 
and  uses  the  words  "pushed  on  10  miles  in  the  same  direction" 
and  plots  a  counterfeit  route  to  match  his  garbled  extract.    He 
omits  the  description  "north  part  of  the  way  and  south  part  of 
the  way"  because  it  would  conflict  with  his  false  routing.    He 
also  omita  the  description  that  the  sun  was  in  the  south  and  he 
locates  Camp  Jessupata  spot  where  the  sun  was  not  in  the 
south,  at  the  times  stated.    He  also  ignores  Peaiy's  words 
Columbia  Meridian  time."  (which  is  70th  meridian  time)  and 
adopts  60th  meridian  time  as  data  from  which  to  locate  Camp 
Jessup  to  match  his  false  routing.    With  all  his  falsified  and 
garbled  data  it  necessarily  foUows  that  there  is  nothing  and 
can  be  nothing  of  truth  in  his  deductions,  in  his  diagram,  or  in 
his  plotting. 

Mitchell  says: 

♦k  *"/?"  the  morning  of  the  7th.  when  observations  showed 
that  Camp  Jessup  was  probably  in  the  direction  of  Behring 
bea  from  the  Pole.  a.  march  of  eight  miles  was  made  in  the 
direction  of  the  sun,  under  the  belief  it  was  being  viewed  directly 
over  the  Pole  Computations  of  the  azimuth  of  the  sun  at  the 
=  *«A.  JJ^e  observation  (6:40  a.  m.)*  showed  however,  that  it 
^^to  the  right  of  the  Pole  and  a  line  of  mareh  was  plotted 

He  computes  the  azimuth  as  placing  the  sun  20  degrees  to 
the  right  of  the  Pole  viewed  from  somewhere;  he  does  not  say 
where,  presumably  the  170th  meridian,  because  he  uses  this 
to  correct  a  supposed  error  of  Peary,  "who  believed  the  sun  was 


record.    He  says  it  WM  6  A.  M..  CM.  T.  which 


means  10  degrees  of  longitude. 


Peary' »  Alleged  Obsertations  Near  the  Pole 


197 


directly  over  the  pole."  Now  the  sun  was  not  20  degrees  to 
the  right  of  the  Pole  viewed  from  the  170th  meridian  at  6  a.  m., 
C.  M.  T  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  azimuth  of  the  sun  would  have 
shr  vii  it  U>  iiCive  been  to  the  left  instead  to  the  "right"  of  the 
Po  ^.*  But  Mit<  Veil  had  already  said  that  Peary  was  not  on 
tht  i' 0th  meridian,  but  on  the  lS7th.  If  so  he  must  have 
m&  \;:i'.  •!  f'f'-n  there  (the  137th  meridian)  towards  the  sim.  The 
azimuth  of  the  sun  at  that  time,  6  a.  m.,  would  have  shown  it 
to  be  approximately  S8  degrees  to  the  right  of  the  Pole.f  An 
iivestigation  is  supposed  to  ascertain  the  facts  and  report  what 
is  foimd;  it  is  not  expected  to  suppress  facts  and  report  a  fabric. 
But  this  is  what  Mitchell  obviously  has  done,  both  with  respect 
to  time  and  the  direction  of  the  sun,  at  noon  April  6  and  at 
midnight  of  the  same  day. 

Mitchell's  statement  and  plotting,  if  believed,  places  Peaiy 
in  the  following  grotesque  positions:  That  he  took  the  sun  at 
noon  April  6  and  thought  the  time  was  noon  (Columbia  Meridian 
time)  when  in  fact  according  to  Mitchell  it  was  11  :S0  a.  m.  C.  M 
T.  He  also  thought  the  sun  was  south  at  noon,  but  it  was,  so 
Mitchell  says,  69^  degrees  from  south.  Then  he  marched  as 
he  supposed  directly  north,  but  in  truth  according  to  Mitchell, 
he  went  southwest  (10  miles.)  He  then,  arriving  at  the  end  of 
the  journey  at  midnight  took  another  "satisfactory  series  of 
observations"  and  thought  the  sun  was  in  the  south  at  that 
point,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  according  to  Mitchell  it  was  30 
degrees  from  south.  He  thought  also  that  he  was  on  the  110th 
meridian  east  when  in  truth  (accord'  ig  to  Mitchell)  he  was  on 
the  140th  meridian  east.  Then  he  started  back  for  Camp 
Jessup  supposing  he  was  going  north  again,  but  was  actually, 
according  to  Mitchell,  traveling  40  degrees  from  north.  After 
reaching  Camp  Jessup,  Peaiy  concluded  to  try  again  in  another 
direction  of  8  miles  "directly  towards  the  sun"  supposing  "the 
sun  was  directly  over  the  pole,"  but  a  true  asmuth,  says 
Mitchell,  displayed  the  fact  that  he  was  again  mistaken  by  20 

*Dkgiam9. 

tDiagram  11. 


«i 


198 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


ft  y 

■  i'- 


degrees  in  the  location  of  the  sun.  Now  luck  favors  Pearv  for 
once,  or  possibly  "a  potent  charm  "  feU  upon  hi^     HeIZS 

Worth  Pole.  Just  the  very  point  he  was  searching.  More 
grotesque  positions  in  which  to  place  Peaiy  tiian  these  oo^d 
scarcely  be  concocted.  ^^ 

review^  ""Zt'l^^  the  "position  of  the  sun"  have  now  been 
reviewed.     But  before  taking  the  next  step,  we  may  stop  to  in- 

qmre  how  Mitehe^l  in  the  first  place  came  to  locate  ufesL^^^^^ 

but  by  deductmg  10  minutes  for  an  alleged  error  found  in  a 
chronometer  in  Washington,  brings  it  to  12:30  p^^ 

(If  the  10  be  added,  it  would  bring  the  time  to  12.50 ) 
This  IS  mgenious  but  confusing.  ' 

The  time  when  these  observations  were  taken  is  supposed 
to  have  been  local  time,  which  is  obtained  from  theZ^ 
from  chronometers  True  local  time  is  ascertained  by  obs;^^*-- 
Uons  when  the  sun  is  on  the  meridian  of  the  observer.     l^S 

which  Ume  Peary  did  not  use  or  carry,  and  there  can  be  no 
-on^  for  assuming  that  a  naviga^did  not  ZTl^oZ 

«f  t^""^  Z^  'r*  P'*'"^^^  ^^"^  ^^  that  on  April  5  he  was 
cl"7  26\I-titude  89-  25'.  and  from  there  maroh^t^ 
Camp  Jessup  No.  27     It  would  make  nodifference  then  ^ch 

Cn  Th  ,""f  '^"^  "  "^"^'^^  '^'  ^«  ^-^  Camp 
Jessup.     The  line  of  approach  to  that  spot  would  be  a  line 

drawn  between  Camp  No.  26  and  that  Elected  "i^t.     i^t 

a^  he  Il'^f;  ^'"'  "^  "PP^^  **"  ^  ^^'^^  -tTone  Id 
at  the  alleged  Can^p  Jessup  on  the  187th  meridian  west  Sd 
^e  other  end  (if  extended)  striking  the  coast  of  GrlTCd 
midday  between  Cape  Columbia  and  Cape  Heckla.*    Ha^« 


}>. 


"*    All:'!.'l   (>h  r 


OMMMWATIC 

12  CHAUT 

t  r  lii;f  vi 

•f>rt's 

"'iinji  IJi. 

'  >^  tnile  n5ar»h,  ut 

.'•".-'ht 

Uiji 

■  ••■•  -v.^ 

iisii- 

.!iuj  very 

LOiiertjusly  ?ii;ikes 

'Jie  S 

inii 

f 

1  y>  Utiles 

'h^iaiicc    '  fnmi  ifu 

-t  :i 

'•■  1 

'■  ■■'^''' 

J 

WV  J.„vJ 

nov<r   iit'fore  us  the 

e.s^' 

i^ii 

V     ^  ''\ 

r 

f.:!      i,    .y 

'    '^  li  ill  hi>  (iifigrai 

E. 

1                              « 

?(T( 

li;ii   it'  /u 

tl  ]>jj\hI  I'.iiuie  sffi. 

irnte  < 

>>!U 

:■>•   -i  nan 

*!<    ri 

»  Miod^  i'r 

Mil  the  obsen.itioris  »ul)njitt«J< 

S      lli.!    \\,: 

\  n. 

lyX^il- 

'Kf**'**!   in   results  t. 

a   r 

uii. 

■:.\. ,,.,{.  (1.  - 

3e*^ 

■^l.'^    -,tu(i 

nn'iit,  !>eeau.se  Uie\ 

tlo  n 

.t  ! 

X,T  •■«(!ilj;i 

.  V, 

in>  ..r  I 'en 

rv's,  so  thaf  Vein.'u 

kin)« 

wt. 

-ire  tor;    ■ 
titiition.s  1 

liJTr) 

lit. I,   illni 

V f  do  iioL  kiA.w   wiiereiii 



199 


'int, 


;ita- 
d  l.v 


;  us 
tJier 


fir  <  ■).ni 


l*»;in    were  yfcio.     H..th  .  iuiin.t  l»<.  true,  Int 


!! 
'•.V 

VJil.hHhlfi.i    J)l!v' 


'i  Ks  eel  taiji 


lis.  iire  erron-oiis.  or  tin-  dat^i  sup  jlisni 


-sit)! 


;iMti    IS    UiC 


ori    !i 


we>l/'     Whei;  lie Vlfe(„vereti  thia  fart. 


•tigituii' 
e  shtHiiil 


>•<!  al 


>ii<  f'.  tl 


r  the 


ruphi'-  StK-it-ty   slu.ahi   1 


iuv< 


upon  le.rninK  it.  iii..iVYn  ^_„;  „if,./,itu.^.  .spuriovis  L 
'tat  ii.  'Aus  iinjxissil.!,-  ^\iV,'uy  h,  '  ,vt=  lioen  wiie^-  h 
<^  wjis  ill  isis  des<rip(:fri, 


'uiic  when  he  -iavs  h< 


•J  t 


they 

teiit 


[:*< 


ive 


.servaUor.s  upt-ii   h'.hI,  ^i>^    niaii.'  th.Mr  ooriiputut 
lai  -.heji  he  t.x.k  f\.  \in^.--.  afioii  at.  ikhmi  Ai 


Mi    W, 


'I   tiie  stm 


II. 


]{ 


e  ( tTtaniKv   k 


ami  a  <|ear  sky. 
.  r  he  knew  t.r  ru)t. 
McrU       Mitt  heil  knew  t!  e  vi 


A 


\<\  his  tinie  !)i<v 


\s 


U.H 


t  vv  ;ii!iiii 


t    I) 


luese 


«l- 


,Mk>i 


tVi  his  n-cord  as  jjuhli'.heil 


uitmieiH 


iations  ih.it  iV;»ry  et,i)!d  tif> 


tuns 


ihe  I 


Iv  ha 


ve  .)«t  11  (.1    (he 


it.heU 


•viy  p'-iry  was  (her 


iiv  (IV. ji  e<>nni!il.,L 


tins  we 


ii 


■^Up{nK-!•^ !    he 
\Mif.hfll  know 
w  \iiut  the    hiXn 


but 


P.iS 


e  shuuki  liHve  >ii.sti 


\t-!.s,    filjfj 


r.       ;^    knew    iii.-ii  iT  i'eary  u 
ut;l  .sou!}.,  a!  nt5f.!;  (V-hiiubia  Alei.Ti 


iiiir 


th.U, 


ink- 


.1 


m' 


Peary*a  Allied  Observations  Near  the  Pole 


100 


another  line  representing  the  8  mile  march,  at  right  angles  to 
this  erroneous  Une  and  very  generously  makes  the  8  mile  line 

^J^'^^l^'l''  .    ^'  ^""^  """  ^'^^'^  ^  *»»«  es3alTi 
noted  m  Mitchell's  statement  and  in  his  diagram 

Mitchell  says  that  he  and  Duval  made  separate  computa- 

Uons  by  separate  methods  from  the  observations  submitted  by 

^eary  and  that  they  both  agreed  in  results  to  "a  minute  " 

We  cannot  dispute  this  statement,  because  they  do  not  let  us 

see  their  computations  or  Peary's,  so  that  we  may  know  whether 

they  are  correct  or  not.  and  we  do  not  know  wherem  Peaiy's 

computations  differed  from  Mitchell's.    One  thing  is  certidn. 

either  then-  computaUons  are  erroneous,  or  the  data  supplied 

them  by  Peaiy  were  false.    Both  cannot  be  true,  because  they 

are  contradictory  and  impossible.     It  was  and  is  mcumbcnt 

upon  Mitchell  and  Duval  to  explain. 

MitcheU  says  that  Camp  Jessup  was  on  longitude  1S7 
degrees  west.*  When  he  discovered  this  fact,  he  should  have 
decided  at  once,  or  the  Geographic  Society  should  have  de- 
clared upon  learning  it.  that  Peary  had  submitted  spurious  data, 
and  that  it  was  impossible  for  Peary  to  have  been  where  he 
says  he  was  in  his  description,  at  the  time  when  he  says  he  took 
Uie  observations  upon  which  they  made  their  computations. 
Peaiy  said  that  when  he  took  the  observation  at  noon  April  6, 
the  smi  was  m  the  south.    He  had  his  time  pieces,  his  com- 

^r?  ^  ,*  ""^  '^y-  "*  ^"^'"'y  ^^^  «bout  these;  but 
whether  he  knew  or  not.  we  have  quoted  his  record  as  published 
to  the  world.  Mitchell  knev.  the  very  moment  he  finished  his 
computations  that  Peary  could  not  possibly  have  been  on  the 
137th  mendi^  67  degrees  from  where  he  supposed  he  was. 
Why  does  MitcheU  say  Peary  was  there?  MitcheU  knew  that 
either  his  own  computations  were  wrong  or  that  the  data  were 
wr^g.  He  should  have  discover^]  wherein  it  was,  and  made 
It  known.  He  knew  that  if  Peary  was  at  that  spot  "F."  the 
sun  was  not  south  at  noon  Columbia  Meridian  time,  but  a  few 

*Page  186,  Tert. 


200 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


degrees  from  east.  Mitchell  practically  admits  he  knew  the 
error  when  he  says  "the  sun  was  on  meridian  67^°  west." 
If  this  is  true,  Peary  must  have  l)een  on  that  same  leridian, 
67^  west  (not  the  137th)  to  find  the  sun  south,  but  he  said  he 
was  on  the  70th  meridian;  and  that  is  the  only  meridian  on 
which  he  could  have  been  and  have  the  sun  in  the  south  at  noon, 
Columbia  Meridian  time.  Yet  notwithstanding  this  indisput- 
able fact,  Mitchell  puts  Peary  in  an  impossible  place,  and  the 
sun  in  an  impossible  place,  and  is  there  any  escape  from  the 
conclusion  that  not  only  has  one  or  the  other  falsified,  but  thf.t 
both  of  them  have  done  so? 

As.suriing  for  a  moment  that  Peaiy  was  actually  at  "F" 
at  noon  April  6  on  the  137th  meridian  west  as  Mitchell  says  he 
was,  would  the  following  clause  in  the  statement  by  Mitchell 
be  true?  "A  snapshot  of  the  sim,  a  single  altitude  of  (me 
limb  was  obtained  on  April  6  when  the  sun  was  on  meridian 
67H  degrees  west."  Peary  says  he  took  this  observation  at 
noon  C.  M.  T.,  but  his  facsimile  on  page  362  of  his  book  shows 
12:50.  Take  either  time.  The  susi  was  not  south  at  either 
time  viewed  from  "F"  on  the  137th  meridian.  It  was  north  of 
east. 

Assuming  again  for  another  moment  that  Peary  was  at 
"F"  at  noon  on  the  137th  meridian  where  Mitchell  says  he  was, 
why  then,  if  intending  to  go  to  the  Pole,  did  he  go  southwest 
(towards  home)  as  plotted  by  Mitchell?  The  Pole  was  not  in 
that  direction.  It  was  north.  The  only  possible  answer  can 
be,  that  if  Peary  was  at  "F,"  he  didn't  know  where  he  toas,  aiid 
so  went  off  on  a  wild-goose  chase  southwraf  i  "^  Peary  would  not 
have  been  such  a  fool  as  that.  But  we  ask  in  all  candor,  why 
would  he  take  that  trip,  i^  he  did  not  know  either  his  location  at 
noon  at  "F"  or  the  direction  of  the  sun?  How  could  he  know 
his  location  any  better  at  midnight  at  "G?"  He  had  exactly 
the  same  facilities,  sextant,  compasses,  time  pieces,  and  the 
same  clear  sky.  Then  the  question  arises  how  did  such  a 
navigator  ever  know  where  he  was,  after  leaving  the  Bartlett 
'amp? 


Peary*a  AUrged  Observatioru  Near  the  Pole 


201 


Tlie  sp^ie  impossible  conditions  confront  this  plotting  at 
"D"*  where  Peaiy  would  have  been  at  midnight,  if  Camp 
Jessup  was  at  "C"  170"  west,  as  at  "G."t  Peary  could  not 
possibly  have  been  there  far  he  says:  "When  I  took  my  ob- 
servations at  midnight  at  the  end  of  my  lU  mile  march,  the  sun 
was  in  the  south  at  that  point."  Now  south  from  "D  is 
toward  "D"'  and  the  sun  was  not  there  at  midnight  Columbia 
Meridian  time.  It  was  on  the  line  southwest  from  "D"  as 
shown.!  It  can.  therefore,  be  seen  that  Mitchell  must  be 
absolutely  fabricating  a  plot,  or  perhaps  was  ordered  to  fabricate 
one.  It  is  not  a  plot  of  Peary's  record,  and  no  such  plot  could 
have  been  made  except  by  fabricating  the  data  upon  which  to 
make  it.  Even  though  it  is  impossible  for  any  honest  or 
thoughtful  person  to  accept  this  plot  as  truthful,  we  may  con- 
sider the  means  adopted  in  making  it. 

No  person  can  plot  Peary's  routes  on  the  6th  and  7th  of 
April  from  his  record.  Honest  men  who  have  tried  to  do  so 
admit  its  impossibility.**  However,  anyone  can  lay  out  a 
plausible  route  if  he  fabricates  his  data,  and  this  is  what  Mitchell 
obviously  has  done.  If  one  is  at  liberty  to  discard  a  part  of 
Peary's  record  as  bemg  untrue,  and  then  make  selection  of 
such  parts  of  what  remains  as  will  check  with  the  desired  result, 
there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  landing  him  at  the  North  Pole. 
This  is  exactly  what  has  been  done. 

In  the  next  to  the  last  paragraph  over  his  signature  Mitchell 
says:  "This  line  of  travel  has  been  plotted  'assuming'  that 
its  direction  is  directly  opposite  to  the  direction  of  the  sun  when 
the  noonsight  of  April  6  was  obtained."  He  has  no  right  to 
"assiune"  anything  of  the  kind.  Peary  has  never  published 
a  single  line  justifying  the  plotting  of  such  a  route,  in  any  such 
direction.  This  is  not  computation,  it  is  concoction;  and  being 
introduced  as  evidence  in  a  matter  of  such  world  wide  interest 
by  a  Government  Official  borders  on  the  criminal. 

'Diagram  9. 

tDiagram  11. 

iDiagram  9. 

**See  Prof.  Rigge's  remarka. 


■Md 


.; 


■■i     ' 


■f-Ef^ 


i(H 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


Peary  tells  fully  where  he  went,  the  direction  he  took,  and 
submitted  those  details  to  the  Geographic  Society.  If  any 
plot  is  mode  and  offered  in  evidence,  the  public  is  entitled  to 
one  corresponding  to  Peary's  record,  not  corresponding  to  an 
"assumed"  record,  when  such  an  assumption  is  in  itself,  a  flat 
contradiction  of  Peary's  story.  Peary  tells  (Statement  No.  1) 
exactly  what  he  did.  There  is  no  ambiguity  in  his  language,  no 
mistaking  his  intention,  no  misimderstanding  what  impression 
he  wished  to  make  by  that  statement.  Thi.«>  is  the  question 
which  the  Geographic  Society  had  to  decide;  "Is  Peary's 
story  true,  or  false?"  Their  plotting  finds  it  false;  they  falsely 
report  it  true.  This  action  should  yet  be  investigated  by 
Congress. 

Mitchell's  statement  was  offered  in  evidence  in  Peaiy's 
interest.  It  was  offered  to  verify  the  claims,  and  to  justify  and 
sustain  the  action  of  the  members  of  the  Geographic  Society. 
But  it  is  about  as  positive  proof  as  can  be  foimd  that  the  claim 
was  a  concoction  and  was  false.  Such  a  statement  is  strong 
evidence  as  far  as  it  goes,  that  not  only  was  important  testimony 
omitted  from  the  record,  but  that  a  plotting  -tras  marie,  in  collu- 
sion l>etween  Peary  and  members  of  the  Geographic  Society, 
as  the  only  possible  means  of  escaping  detection. 

Again,  while  the  omission  in  Peary's  book  of  Statement  No. 
1  permitted  Mitchell  to  make  a  plot,  and  a  statement  corres- 
ponding to  his  plot,  it  doef  liot  reUeve  Peary  from  another 
statement,  which  was  evidently  overlooked  and  not  omitted. 
On  page  289  in  his  book,  after  months  of  preparation  thereof, 
he  says:  "It  was  hard  to  realize  that  in  the  first  miles  of  this 
brief  march  (ten  miles  beyond  Camp  Jessup)  we  had  been 
traveling  due  north,  while,  on  the  last  few  miles  of  the  same 
march  we  had  been  traveling  south,  although  we  had  been 
traveling  precisely  in  the  same  direction."  This  is  in  effect 
a  reiteration  of  Statement  No.  1,  made  from  another  point  of 
view,  in  order  to  verify  that  statement.  The  facts  correspond 
with  it.  This  last  quoted  remark  is  not  omitted  in  the  book. 
It  is  a  part  cf  the  record  and  it  was  before  Mitchell  when  he 
made  his  plot. 


Peary's  Alleged  Observations  Near  the  Pole 


20S 


Can  Mr.  Mitchell,  Mr.  Tittmann,  or  any  one  else  explain, 
how  such  a  statement  as  this  can  be  reconciled  with  the  Mitchell 
route,  as  plotted  in  his  diagram  shown  herewith?  Could  any 
one  travel  part  of  that  route  north  and  part  south?  Mitchell 
says  that  Peary's  observations,  computed  by  himself  and  Duval 
show  that  Peary  traveled  over  the  route  plotted,  which  route 
is  practically  in  a  line  running  southwest  and  northeast  and  that 
the  iO  mile  march  was  away  from  the  Pole,  not  toward  it,  and 
also  that  if  he  were  there  and  on  that  route  he  did  not  know  where 
he  was.  The  truth  is,  and  must  be,  that  Peaiy  did  not  make  the 
march,  and  did  not  make  the  observations  as  he  alleges.  Mit- 
chell's plot  confirms  the  opinion.  If  Peary  made  such  a  march 
and  was  where  he  said  he  was  on  longitude  170°  west,  or  even 
where  Mitchell  says  he  was,  137»  west,  the  sun  was  not  in  the 
south  viewed  from  either  of  those  points.  If  the  sun  was  south 
where  Peary  was,  he  was  not  where  he  claims  to  have  been,  or 
where  Mitchell  claims  he  was.  There  can  be  no  possible  way 
of  reconciling  these  statements. 

There  is  also  an  error  in  the  plotting  by  Mitchell  as  to 
Peary's  Ime  of  "approach  from  Cape  Columbia."  Peaiy  did 
not  say  that  he  approached  in  a  direct  line  from  Cape  Columbia, 
or  from  a  point  on  Grant  Land  east  of  Cape  Columbia.  He 
says  he  started  on  his  last  march  from  Camp  No.  26,  Latitude 
«0'  «5',  Longitude  70th  west.  Mitchell's  plot  should  show  a 
line  drawn  from  one  camp  to  the  other,  as  before  stated  not 
from  a  point  on  the  coast  of  Grant  Land  severa;l  d^rees  east  of 
Cape  Columbia,  which  would  have  made  a  different  route,  in  a 
different  direction.  Not  a  line  in  Mitchell's  plot  is  Peary's 
routing,  or  a  routmg  from  Peary's  description.  It  is  Mitchell's 
plot.  It  does  not  verify  Peaiy's  story  or  his  claim,  but  ccm- 
tradicts  and  discredits  both. 

It  would  be  useless  to  attempt  to  trace  all  the  errors  that 
necessarily  follow  an  adoption  of  such  false  premises.  Mitchell 
assumed  a  wrong  time,  a  wrong  directi<m  of  the  sun,  a  wnmg 
direction  of  travel,  and  consequently  produced  a  wrtmg  location 
of  Camp  Jessup.    No  value  can  be  placed  on  Tittmann's  and 


8M 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  DUcovered 


Mitchell's  computations,  because  they  are  obviously  based  on 
false  data  throughout.  They  evidently  selected  arbitrarily  a 
suitable  position  in  which  they  wished  to  locate  Camp  Jessup, 
and  then  deliberately  prepared  the  necessary  premises  from 
which  to  produce  this  location,  time,  direction,  etc.  If  the 
object  of  this  'testimony  and  this  plot  was  to  prove  that  Peary's 
observations,  his  calculations  and  narratives,  are  unreliable, 
they  have  succeeded  beyond  the  fondest  hopes  of  Peary's 
enemies.  Nothing  need  be  added.  If  Peary  and  his  witnesses 
after  months  of  preparation  err  88  degrees  of  longitude  in 
locating  him  at  the  nearest  point,  what  would  his  critics  be 
likely  to  find  if  they  could  see  the  observations,  if  they  could 
have  the  facts?  They  could  at  least  show  the  public  how  the 
discrepancy  occurs.  The  little  that  Peary  vouchsafes  to  the 
public  is  enough  to  arouse  suspicion.  He  gives  facsimiles  of 
only  two  of  his  observations.     Why  does  he  withhold  the  rest? 

The  biggest  fool  that  was  ever  bom,  could  not  in  an  at- 

jmpt  to  locate  himself  somewhere  on  this  earth's  surface,  get 

over  180  degrees  out  of  the  way.     Yet  Peary,  a  very  intelligent 

man,  a  navigator,  a  civil  engineer,  shows  an  error  of  100  degrees 

in  one  day's  calculation. 

One  thing  out  of  this  horrid  mess  is  clear.  From  Peary's 
own  statement,  he  actually  made  a  mistake  of  100  degrees  in 
longitude  in  one  day's  march.  No  wonder  he  did  not  take  any 
observations  on  the  journey  for  longitude,  and  no  wonder  that 
Gannett  says  "They  are  unnecessary;"  and  no  wonder  Pear^ 
does  not  give  a  single  observation  between  the  Bartlett  Camp 
and  the  Pole,  for  if  he  had  made  the  same  error  each  day  after 
leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  for  the  five  marching  days  that  he 
says  he  consumed  in  getting  to  the  Pole,  he  would  have  made 
errors  of  500  degrees  of  longitude,  which  would  have  taken  him 
nearly  once  and  a  half  timee  around  the  globe. 

Henry  Gannett  and  O.  H.  Tittmann,  have  attempted  to 
bolster  up  their  testimony,  by  obviously  fabricated  data.  The 
evidence  presented  by  them  is  based  on  the  clap-trap  theory, 
that  showing  accurate  computations,  from  the  observatiims  on 


Peary'a  Alleged  Obaervaiiont  Near  the  Pole  205 

which  they  are  based,  is  proof  positive  that  the  observation, 
themse  yes  are  genuine.  The  pretense  that  the  discoveiy  of 
some  shght  errors  in  Peary's  data  as  to  chronometer  Time 
actually  brings  nm.  a  little  nearer  the  Pole  is  too  obvious  to 
deceive  any  thoughtful  person.  To  emphasize  this,  an  attempt 
IS  made  to  illustrate  by  a  great  flourish  of  detail  (thereby  divert- 
ing  attention  from  the  nonsensical  r.erformance;  that  h  re- 
rating  of  a  chronometer  was  made,  which  brought  forth  some 
data  unavailable  to  Peary  on  the  Polar  Sea.     This  chronometer 

aMhot  H  ^*'"^r  •'""'  %*^"^'  "••  ^'"PP*^  ^itogether,  or  been 
at  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  as  far  as  ha>ang  any  l>earing  whatever 
on  Peary  s  observations  or  calculations  was  concerned,  for  a 
careful  exammation  of  all  of  Peary's  ritings  fails  to  find  a  single 
word,  that  warrants  a  belief  that  he  took  either  of  his  ship 
chronometers  on  his  trip  over  the  Polar  ice.  It  would  have 
JH^en  strange  if  he  did.  He  appears  to  have  had  two  chrono! 
me  ers  on  his  ship  when  he  left  New  York.  Borup  and  Mc- 
Millan used  one*  in  tidal  work  on  the  Greenland  Coast.  The 
o  her  IS  supposed  to  have  l,een  left  on  the  ship,  to  be  used  on  her 

iuH   ^K       kT-*  ^''i'^  "^^^  ^'  "^^  "°  observations  for  longi^ 
ide.  thought  It  useless  to  do  so.  consequently  he  may  have 
thought  It  useless  to  take  a  chronometer. 

in.  ^Tr""  "^^  ^^^T  *''*^*'"*y  ^"  ^««^'«  book  for  assum- 
mg  that  he  used  the  identical  chronometer  on  which  he  ad- 

"NoHhPolerP&gem.  "It  must  be  remembered  that 
day  and  night  were  still  determined  only  by  UiTcT<S  ^,  th. 
ever  circhng  sun  had  not  yet  set  "  ^  '  *^  "*® 

North  Pole,"  Page  268.     "Watches  " 
"Hampton'g,"  Page  284.  Sept.  1810.    "Durine  the  fir,* 
few  hours  of  thi.  marx^h.  in  fact. V  eyes  weieTslch  a  ^! 
*Narth  Pole,  page  840. 


'€-4 


soo 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discmered 


dition  that  the  fiKiires  on  the  dial  of  my  Howard  wat<-h.  which 
I  had  U'  '  in  rhwIvinR  my  observations  at  the  pole  were  almost 
continii..ily  blurred." 

Shackleton  used  pocket  chronometers,  as  is  the  custom 
with  sledge  travelers.  It  would  be  strange  under  the  circum- 
stances if  Peary  should  take  such  a  heavy  instrument  as  a  ship 
chronometer  when  he  did  not  nectl  it.  He  does  not  .say  he  did. 
It  appears  to  be  a  part  of  the  scheme  of  Mitchell  and  his  clique 
to  use  this  pretended  rating  to  mislead  Congres.s.  In  a  scientific 
matter  of  this  character  Mr.  Mitchell  should  not  assume  with- 
out producing  his  authority  for  the  assumption,  that  the  chrono- 
meter rating,  which  he  says  he  used  in  his  calculations,  applies 
to  the  identical  instrument  used  by  Peary  on  the  Polar  Sea. 
These  men,  at  these  tricks,  are  Government  officers.  We  have 
a  perfect  right  to  expose  their  misdoings  and  use  the  severest 
language  in  condemning  their  iniquity. 

In  brief  then,  the  testimony  of  Mitchell  is  based  on  the 
following  fabrications:  Giving  the  sun's  direction  as  over  the 
67 J^  meridian  instead  of  the  70th;  Using  the  60th  meridian 
time  instead  of  the  70th  (Columbia  Meridian)  time;  Plotting 
a  route  at  false  angles;  Locating  Camp  Jessup  in  an  impossible 
place  and  garbling  Peary's  sentences  in  order  to  conform  them 
to  a  spurious  plotting  and  indicating  that  this  plot  supports 
instead  of  denies  Peary's  data.  This  is  all  peculiarly  and  em- 
phatically misleading  when  accomplished  by  a  judge  to  whom 
has  been  submitted  a  problem  for  impartial  interpretation. 
Not  a  word  is  given  in  explanation  of  the  diflFerence  between 
Peary  and  Mitchell.  Yet  this  is  all  the  proof  existing  that 
Peary  reached  the  North  Pole,  an  achievement  the  scientific 
results  of  which  are  said  (in  the  record)  to  "  reflect  the  greatest 
credit  on  the  ability  of  Commander  Robert  E.  Peary  and  render 
him  worthy  of  the  highest  honors." 

Computing  latitude  and  longitude  is  the  simplest  problem, 
rhe  observation  of  the  sun  for  this  purpose  consists  of  its  altitude 
only.  Six  figures  which  are  read  from  the  sextant  "  Degrees, " 
"Minutes,"  and  "Seconds"  express  it  in  detail.  These  six 
figures,  are  the  only  figures  which  Peary  could  have  submitted 


Peary' »  Alleged  ObaenxUwna  Near  the  Pole 


«07 


to  these  s(>ientific  Rentlemen  for  their  profound  consideration. 
All  other  figures,  except  these  six,  that  were  used  in  connection 
with  these  gigantic  computations  were  taken  from  tables  in 
)KX)ks  which  are  available  to  everybody.  Peary  obtained  no 
other  figures  in  the  Arctic,  but  these;  if  he  used  others,  he  took 
them  with  him  in  books.  In  view  of  this,  no  sensible  person  can 
truthfully  say,  that  it  is  possible,  without  forgery,  to  make 
separate  computaticms  from  the  same  altitude  and  bring  results 
in  longitude  70  degrees  west,  135  degrees  west,  and  170  degrees 
west.  It  only  requires  a  sheet  of  paper  to  show  each  computa- 
tion in  full.  Not  a  fraction  of  the  space  or  time  that  was  used 
to  conceal  them.  Furthermore,  if  this  had  been  an  honest  and 
sincere  attempt  to  promulgate  the  truth,  some  explanation 
^-ould  have  been  offered  -o  the  public  accounting  for  such  un- 
heard of  discrepancies,  hi/  '  unheard  of  ailmissions  in  attempts 
at  navigation.  A  more  - .'  i  tding,  and  considering  its  source 
and  its  puqxwes,  a  more  atrocious  declaration  is  inconceivable. 

A  significant  feature  about  all  this  is,  that  regardless  of 
which  longitude  is  selected,  the  70th,  the  137th  or  the  170th,  for 
the  location  of  the  imaginary  Camp  Jessup,  or  in  other  words, 
regardless  of  how  greatly  in  error  Peary  may  have  been  in 
imagining  his  own  location,  it  is  assumed  in  each  computation 
that  hr  knew  the  exact  location  of  the  North  "ole  and  marched 
right  to  it.  But  in  order  to  make  all  the  various  conflicting 
computations  and  locations  correspond  chameleon-like  to  such 
a  march,  the  direction  of  the  sun  is  necessarily  falsified,  the 
points  of  the  compass  are  disregarded,  and  the  time  of  day  is 
adjusted  to  suit  each  case. 

Peary  at  that  time  was  supposed  to  have  been  36  days  out 
from  land.  For  the  first  time  in  those  36  days,  observations  are 
taken  to  ascertain  his  longitude,  and  to  acciu-ately  fix  his  loca- 
tion, presumably  to  check  with  his  deud  reckoning.  He  had 
followed  a  serpentine  course  through  a  .'abyrinth  of  ice  floes 
over  418  miles  of  latitude  on  the  drifting  polar  ice.  When  he 
called  a  halt  at  10  a.  m.,  on  April  6,  19i/3,  he  found  that  he  was 
exactly  where  he  supposed  he  was,  and  where  he  should  be. 


i.;^^  ."  Sfia«*^1 


SOS 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


m 


I, 


^i 


\m'i 


Henson  says  the  North  Pole  flag  was  erected  "just  behind  the 
igloo. "  It  was  once  moved  150  ft.  so  as  to  be  precisely  in  the 
proper  place.  T  when  Peary  attempts  a  little  closer  accuracy 
for  the  demandr  i  science,  for  proof  of  his  achievement,  for 
purposes  of  history,  and  consimies  over  a  year's  time  for  re- 
vision, he  cannot  get  his  separate  computations  to  check  with 
one  another  as  to  his  location  within  100  degrees  of  longitvde. 
A  committee  of  three  of  the  most  eminent  scientists  in  America 
said  to  be  unsurpassed  in  skill,  then  undertake  the  task.  A  year 
later  after  revieiM'ng  these  various  computations,  at  Uieir 
leisure,  they  cannot  or  do  not  make  their  own  conclusions  check 
out  within  38  degrees  of  longitude  with  Peaiy's  calculations. 
The  anomaly,  this  absurd  incongruity,  was  accepted  by  Congress 
and  the  President  as  evidence  from  a  skillful  navigator  as  proof 
that  he  was  at  the  North  Pole.* 

One  is  justified  in  the  belief  that  no  person  in  his  senses 
would  have  dared  to  present  such  a  bare-faced  conglomeration 
of  impossibilities,  imless  he  well  knew  beforehand  that  it  made 
no  difference  what  he  submitted.  If  this  was  in  truth  the  best 
that  could  be  done  with  the  data  at  hand,  or  if  it  were  possible 
to  conceive  of  there  being  a  spark  of  truth  back  of  it  all,  or 
possible  even  to  think  that  these  errors  were  genuine  errors, 
then  it  singly  was  a  stroke  of  genius  on  Peary's  part  not  to  have 
attempted  any  other  observations  on  the  trip,  or  at  least,  not 
to  have  published  them.  It  was  absolutely  essential  for  the 
Geographic  Society  to  conceal  all  of  their  alleged  computations 
as  their  publication  would  unquestionably  and  inevitably  have 
laid  bare  the  fraud. 

It  is  impossible  to  know  the  trutn  regarding  the  location  of 
Camp  Jessup.  Peary  saw  no  land,  made  no  sounding.  His 
only  witness  on  the  march  (Henson)  is  against  him.  The  only 
•Note: — If  Peary  had  been  at  the  North  Pole  and  had  made  a  misUke 
of  100  degrees  in  his  longitude,  it  would  not  have  been  strange  or  even 
unexpected,  becaiise  the  meridians  in  that  high  latitude  are  so  near  together 
toat  100  degrees  in  longitude  would  be  only  a  few  miles  in  distance,  and  no 
disUnue  at  alt  at  the  Pole.  But  the  significance  is  that  no  two  computers 
using  the  saine  aitidude  or  no  one  person  who  makes  two  computations  from 
the  same  altitude  should  \-ary  in  their  findings. 


Peary's  Alleged  Obaervatioru  Near  the  Pole 


209 


one  positive  fact  that  he  presents  to  the  public  lies  in  these 
alleged  observations  near  the  Pole.  If  Peary  were  honest,  there 
would  be  nothing  for  him  to  fear.  He  should  give  the  public 
full  information:  every  altitude,  every  calculation,  every  com- 
putation, everything  in  his  possession,  not  hold  anything  back, 
but  let  scientific  men  everywhere  examine  the  records  if  they 
wish,  and  give  the  world  their  opinion.  The  sun  is  true.  It  is 
always  where  it  ought  to  be  on  schedule  time.  If  a  statement 
regarding  it  fails  to  check  out  with  this  schedule  time  of  the  sim 
the  statb^  lent  is  wrong,  view  it  as  we  may.  Peary's  talents  as 
an  explorer  do  not  appear  to  be  adapted  to  story  writmg.  He 
does  not  seem  to  be  able  to  carry  in  his  mind  a  suitable  poise  and 
grasp  of  a  complicated  plot.  The  prediction  may  be  safely 
ventured  that  future  editions  of  the  story  "The  North  Pole," 
if  any  are  issued,  will  be  much  revised. 

I  have  now  preamted  all  the  evidence  there  is,  with 
reference  to  Peary's  alleged  observations  near  the  Pole.  I  have 
commented  on  this  evidence  with  sufficient  clearness  and 
amplitude  to  show  its  contradictory  nature.  I  shall  now 
endeavor  by  analysis  to  show  with  equal  clearness  that  all  of 
this  evidence,  whether  furnished  by  Peary  himself,  or  by  the 
members  of  the  Geographic  Society  in  Peary's  behalf  is  de- 
liberate invention.* 

*Note. — ^The  writer  of  theie  pages  piofesiei  no  devemess  in  matters  of 
Navigation  or  Astronomy.  He  presenU  these  features  as  they  appear  to  him. 
hppmg  they  mav  be  dear  to  plain  dtiaens.  Readers  who  wish  a  sdiolariy 
diaserUtirai  on  the  subject  of  observations  at  the  Pole  are  referred  to  Appendix 
No.  I  with  the  duigram  attadied  written  by  the  noted  St  Louis  scientist  WJ. 
Armbruster. 


'    :il 


CHAPTER  VII 
HOW  PEARY  OBTAINED  HIS  HONORS 

official,,  «u,ounc«l  that  a^ftte  rf  S"^,  Government 
;nve.t«.W  Pea^.,  dJiZT^^t^:^,!  ^T^' 

i-iortu  roie.     Inis  announcement  was  accents  oaf-         j 

scandalous     ?f  ^   •  *  ^^*  ^^'^^  *PP«»"  ^niust  a-.J 

hT^  «!:!  I  »nteipretation  is  correct,  the  Society  • 

^^'  ^Z*^"^""  *^^  condemnation  of  everThont      < 
Srl^^r  ^^  ^^^?^  -^^<^-    I*  -tteZotZt  . 

an  em>;     o^  .1,  "  """ """  '^«™'«'  »  «■«  decidon  was 

810 


How  Peary  Obtained  His  Honors  fll 

However,  the  only  question  is  whether  these  decisions  were 
nght  or  wrong.  In  view  of  the  facts  which  this  analysis  has 
^readychsclosed  can  there  possibly  be  ^  just  conclusion 
except  the  one  we  have  herein  announced,  which  is  entirely  based 

♦T^!!.**'^*'^'**''**^  These  aUeged  scientists  have  told 
the  world  that  Peaiy  IS  the  discoverer  of  the  North  Pole.  This 
analysis  mdicat^  that  he  is  not.    Can  they  refute  the  position 

^Zi"^  ^y^'JJ^^rtheycandosoornotisanopenqla^tion. 
but  whether  tiiey  have  or  not  in  tiie  decree  already  made,  may 
now  be  shown.  ^ 

If  Peaiy^s  claims  ate  true,  the  National  Geographic  Society 
IS  m  a  position  to  establish  tiie  fact.    They  have  every  ad- 
vantage m  such  a  contest  over  an  analyzer  who  has  only  Peary's 
narrative  for  his  guide.    Thev  have  tiie  claimant  and  have 
access  to  all  hu,  documents,     .hey  have  tiie  power  to  establish 
beyond  dispute,  tiie  justice  of  tiieir  decision.    The  spirit  of 
patnotism,  the  entiiusiasm  of  a  great  achievement,  tiie  glory 
of  tiieu.  flag  IS  on  tiieir  side.    An  analyzer  is  handicapped, 
because  aU  tiiat  is  obnoxious  and  tedious  in  such  a  controve^ 
IS  r^rved  for  him.    However,  if  tiiis  analysis  can  be  shown  to 
be  thr  result  of  cuimmg,  or  of  an  adroit  twisting  of  tiie  evidence 
to  injure  a  dwervmg  discoverer,  tiie  autiior  deserves  tiie  ex- 
ecration of  all  honest  men.    On  tiie  other  hand  to  be  just,  what 
shall  be  said  If  accusations  of  deception  do  in  trutii.  He  at  tiie 
door  of  tiie  Geographic  Society?    In  order  to  leam  tiie  trutii. 
we  shall  undertake  to  review  tiieir  action  and  tiie  decision  of  tiie 
autiiontia,  m  Washmgton.  who  later  acted  in  Peary's  behalf. 
Peary  s  book  and   tiie  testimony  before  tiie  Congressional 
Committee  «  aU  tiie  evidence  the  world  has,  as  to  whXr  or 
not  Peaiy  reached  tiie  Nortii  Pole.    The  book  has  been  partially 
r^ewed  m  th«e  pages.    It  is  now  essential  to  examine  tiS 
transactions  m  Washington. 

Sometime  prior  to  October  1909,  Peary  was  in^-ited  by  tiie 
National  Geographic  Society  of  Washington  D.  C,  a  private 
organization,  to  present  his  evidence  and  proofs  to  tiiem  He 
responded  by  sending  a  messenger,  Mr.  Nichols,  with  copies  ol 


i; 


212 


Hcu  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


3    , 
11 


a  portion  only,  of  his  log  or  diary,  which  portion  strangely 
enough  did  not  include  his  alleged  travels  north  of  the  Bartlett 
Camp.  This  did  not  seem  to  satisfy  the  members  of  the 
committee.  He  was,  therefore,  invited  to  bring  the  rest  of  his 
material.  (This  correspondence  is  not  published.)  Peary  then 
went  to  Washington  with  a  trunk  containing  his  instruments, 
and  a  hand  satchel  containing  his  papers,  arriving  in  Washington 
in  the  forenoon  of  October  20,  1900.  The  trunk  with  the 
instruments  arrived  on  another  train  late  in  the  afternoon. 
Peary  hunself  would  not  divulge  to  the  Congressional  Committee 
his  movements  during  that  day  in  Washington,  but  the  following 
action  taken  by  the  managers  of  the  National  Geographic 
Society  uidicates  Peary's  actions. 

"*At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  managers  of  the  National 
ueographic  Society,  Wednesday  morning,  October  20,   1909 
the  records,  observations  and  proof  of  Commander  Robert  E* 
Peary  that  he  reached  the  pole  April  6,  1909,  were  submitted 
to  the  Society.    The  records  and  observations  were  immediately 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  research,  with  the  direction  that 
tje  cnairman  appoint  a  sub-committee  of  experts,  of  which  he 
shall  be  a  member,  to  examine  records  and  report  on  them  to 
the  board.     Mr.  Heniy  Gannett,  chairman  of  the  committee  on 
research,  immediately  appointed  as  the  other  members  of  the 
committee,  Rear  Admiral  Colby  M.  Chester,  United  States 
Navy,aud  O.  H.  Tittmann,  Superintendent  of  the  United  States 
Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey.    This  committee  of  the  society 
will  personally  examine  the  notebooks  and  ori^nal  observa- 
tions made  by  Commander  Peary  in  his  march  to  the  pole  and 
see  all  the  papers  as  brought  back  from  the  field.    The  com- 
mittee will  report  the  results  of  its  findings  at  a  special  meeting 
of  the  board  to  be  called  for  that  purpose. " 

How  much  o*  the  day  this  action  took  is  not  known;  but 
Peary,  Gannett,  Tittmann  and  Chester,  as  the  testimony  will 
show,  met  by  appointment  at  Admiral  Chester's  house  sometune 
in  the  afternoon,  and  kter  in  the  day  when  "it  had  become 
dark"  they  went  to  the  depot,  opened  the  trunk,  took  out  some 
of  the  instruments  for  examination,  but  returned  them  to  the 

•Puge  9,  Test. 


How  Peary  Obtained  His  Honors 


218 


trunk,  leaving  others  undisturbed.    This  is  the  extent  to  which 
the  instnunents  were  examined. 

While  they  were  at  Chester's  house,  Peary  submitted  some 
"loose  leaves"  purporting  to  have  been  torn  from  his  log  book 
or  diary,  together  with  other  loose  leaves,  said  to  contain  his 
observations  of  the  sun  and  computations  thereon.  After 
Gannett,  Chester,  and  Tittraann  had  separately  or  collectively 
examined  these  "proofs"  that  afternoon  in  Chester's  house, 
Peary  again  took  the  papers  and  they  remained  in  his  possession 
until  they  were  submitted  in  a  similar  manner  to  the  Sub- 
committee on  Naval  Affairs  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
about  a  year  later.  This  brief  so-called  examination  by  these 
three  men  of  Peary's  "proofs"  at  Chester's  house  in  the  after- 
noon of  October  20,  1909  and  their  alleged  examination  of  the 
instruments  at  the  depot  later  in  the  day,  was  absolutely  all  the 
knowledge,  and  all  the  evidence  that  they  had  as  to  whether  or 
not,  Peary  had  actually  reached  the  North  Pole. 

The  volume  of  data  indicates  that  they  could  not,  each  of 
them,  have  even  read  it  all  in  the  time  at  their  disposal,  or  made 
suitable  comparisons  and  computations,  nor  could  they  have 
actually  investigated  these  proofs.  Nevertheless,  they  con- 
sidered this  examination  suflBciently  thorough  for  them  to 
present  to  the  managers  of  the  National  Geographic  Society  the 

following  report:* 

"Commander  Peary  has  submitted  to  this  suu-committee 
his  original  journal  and  records  of  observations,  together  with 
all  his  instruments  and  apparatus  and  certain  of  the  most 
important  of  the  scientific  results  of  his  expedition.  These 
have  been  carefully  examined  by  your  sub-committee,  and  they 
are  imanimously  of  the  opinion  that  Commander  Peary  reached 
the  North  Pole  on  April  6,  1909.  They  also  feel  warranted  in 
stating  that  the  oi^anization,  planning,  and  management  of  the 
expedition,  its  complete  success,  ard  its  scientific  results  reflect 
the  greatest  credit  on  the  ability  of  Commander  Robert  E. 
Peary  and  render  him  worthy  of  the  highest  honors  that  the 
National  Geographic  Society  can  bestow  upon  him. " 

Henby  Gannett. 

C.  M.  Chester. 

O.  H.  TlTTMANN. 
♦Page  9,  Test. 


214 


Has  the  North  PoL  Been  Discovered 


\l    i 


The  foregoing  report  wis  unani-rously  approved  by  the 
TdoX'"'  """"^   ™"^«^^*«'y   '"^   ^-ilovnng  resolutions  were 

Worth  1  ole.  the  goal  sought  for  many  centuries;  and  wherMs 
this  18  the  greatest  geographical  achievement  that  thirsaS 

^^•''r*^P|^''*""'*y  ***  ^°"«^=  Therefore:  rSSivS   Sfj 
special  medal  be  awarded  to  Commander  Peaty^ 

n^.^'^^l'll  ^TJ?^  °'  ^''^"^  '"  ^'^^  ™*^'°K-    These  four 
men.  at  Admiral  Chester's  house,  in  those  few  hours  in  the 

afternoon  of  October  20.  1909.  pretended  to  have  "carefully" 
examined  the  records  of  the  two  year's  expedition;  to  have 
investigated  and  made  computations  of  Peary's  various  ob- 
servations  necessary  for  that  purpose,  checking  them  with  all 
ioiown  astronomical  data  to  ascertain  their  accuracy;  to  have 
compared  his  alleged  speed  with  that  of  previous  expeditions; 
and  to  have  then  proceeded  to  the  depot  and  "carefully" 
exammed  the  instruments.    These   self-selected  judges,  with 
the  mvited  claimant  as  the  only  witness,  in  a  few  hours,  con- 
sidered, discussed  and  decided  upon  the  merits  of  a  bitteriy 
contested  case,  over  which  a  controversy  unparaUeled  in  acri- 
mony was  then  raging  in  the  press  of   the   civilised   world. 
Thousands  of  pages  had  been  written,  yet  suppressing  every 
vestige  of  the  testimony  or  evidence  before  them,  these  men 
annomiced  their  ovs-n  decision  for  the  benefit  of  a  waiting  world 
and  published  it  as  that  of  a  sciertific  organization.     They  not 
only  decKled  that  Peaiy  reached  the  North  Pole,  but  to  show 
the  public  the  thoroughness  of  their  labors,  they  also  decided 
that      we  are   warranted  in   stating  that  the  organization, 
plannmg  and  management  of  the  expedition,   its  complete 
success  Mid  Its  scientific  results  reflect  the  greatest  credit  on  the 

Mv.  ^'^  uT*"**^'  ^°^^  ^'  ^^^"y-  ^d  render  him  worthy 
of  the  highest  honors  that  the  NaUonal  Geographic  Society  can 
bestow  upon  him. "  r  ^  v«i 

Bearing  in  mind  the  fact  that  aU  of  Peary's  .*wcalled 
proofs  which  wer«  examined  by  the  Society  were  withheld  from 
tHe  pubhc  and  even  from  Congress,  there  U  one  question  which 


How  Peary  Obtained  Hit  Honors 


215 


it  is  proper  to  put  to  this  distinguished  Committee  of  the 
National  Geographic  Society.     "  What  proofs  did  Peaiy  furnish 
that  justified  you  in  proclaiming  him  the  discoverer  of  the  Pole? 
Can  you  name  a  single  item  that  caUed  for  scientific  investiga- 
tion?"   Mr.  Gannett,  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  says  in  his 
testimony  that  it  was  "  Peary's  journals,  records  of  observations, 
his  mstruments  and  apparatus,"  not  a  word  about  "proofs." 
The  truth  is.  there  is  nothing  in  Peary's  "proofs"  that  calls  for 
action  by  a  scientific  body;  and  no  honest  scientific  body  would 
have  announced  that  he  had  reached  the  Pole,  when  they  did 
not  and  could  not   know.    Did   the  committee  recompute 
Peary's  figures  from  his  observations?    Eveiy  navigator  knows 
that  this  is  the  simplest  of  problems.     But  whether  these  com- 
putations were  found  right,  or  wrong,  they  would  prove  nothing 
with  respect  to  Peary's  location.    Was  it  his  instruments,  his 
sextant,  compass  or  thermometer,  wl    'i  decided  the  Com- 
mittee? 

Peary  traveled  over  the  PoUr  Sea  in  company  with  a  Negro 
and  four  Eskimos.    No  other  person  had  any  commimication 
with  him.  or  had  any  knowledge  of  what  he  did.    These  living 
witnesses  such  as  they  are,  can  teU  their  story,  just  as  Peary 
can.    Those  who  hear  it  may  give  it  such  value  as  they  choose. 
Henson  has  told  his  story  and  it  is  a  flat  contradiction  of  Peary's. 
A  kwyer  could  examine  Henson,  and  if  he  were  permitted  or 
disposed  to  talk,  some  truth,  no  doubt,  could  be  brought  to 
Ught.    If  this  Uwyer  understood  the  Eskimo  Umguage,  he 
could  examine  the  Eskimos  and  Peary  himself  with  like  results. 
As  there  is  no  one  else  who  knows  where  the  party  went,  or 
what  they  did,  there  is  not  a  scmtilla  of  evidence  of  any  character 
whatsoever  that  can  be  produced  as  "proqft."    If  Peary  had 
made  a  sounding,  which  he  did  not;  if  he  had  said  he  discovered 
land,  which  he  did  not;  these  would  have  been  facts  subject  to 
review  by  future  explorers,  and  the  truth  in  time  might  be 
known;  but  as  the  case  now  stands,  there  is  not  a  particfe  of  so- 
caUed  proof  that  could  not  be  compUed  any  where  on  the  gk)be. 
Recomputing  the  records  of  his  observations,  which  any  one 


216 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Urn 


I  <,;■■{ 


could  do,  would  be  no  proof  of  where  he  was.  His  inatrumenta 
are  no  evidence  of  reaching  the  Pole,  or  of  even  being  used. 
His  diary,  which  could  be  written  any  where  is  no  proof.  What 
was  this  mysterious  proof  which  the  Geographic  Society  an- 
nounced that  the  world  must  not  see,  lest  it  "stultify  the 
national  honor?"  Everything,  except  the  credibility  of  the 
published  narrative  is  eliminated  from  consideration  in  ascer- 
taining the  truth  of  the  discovery;  and  this  must  be  judged  by 
anyone  who  reads  it. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  incun  lent  to  say  hete  that  the 
National  Geographic  Society  have  ].  ^rpetrated  a  monstrous 
wrong  on  the  civilized  world,  and  ^'■-  equally  culpable  with 
Peary  in  their  pretension  that  they  have  proofs,  or  even  facts, 
requiring  scientific  consideration.  In  the  end  their  representa- 
tions are  sure  to  react  on  them.  Congressman  Moore  says:* 
"The  report  of  the  Geographic  Society  was  plain.  The  three 
men  who  signed  the  report  were  better  qualified  than  any 
Committee  of  Congress  to  pass  upon  Peaiy's  instruments  and 
records.  These  three  men  certified  to  an  awaiting  world  that 
they  had  examined  the  records  and  instruments  and  found 
them  true.  Who  were  these  three  men?  Independent 
Scientists,  who  dared  to  stake  their  reputations  upon  a  false- 
hood, or  upon  a  superficial  examination  of  the  facts?"  These 
are  jiertinent  questions  and  if  these  three  men  have  actually 
done  these  things,  that  fact  should  fill  the  mind  of  any  honest 
person  with  horror.  They  are  all  men  in  the  government  em- 
ploy: Gannett  is  the  Chief  Geographer  of  the  United  States; 
Chester  is  an  Admiral;  Tittmann  is  Superintendent  of  the  U.  S. 
Coast  and  Geodetic  Siuvey.  They  are  familiar  with  every 
phase  of  such  problems  as  were  submitted  to  them.  They  knew 
the  force  which  their  declaration  on  such  a  subject  would  have 
upon  the  pubUc  mind  and  upon  the  Government.  The  reply 
is  that  these  distinguished  men  have  assiuned  the  responsibility 
for  the  truthfulness  of  these  claims,  and  of  course  they  have  a 
right  to  their  opinions  and  a  right  to  express  them. 
*Speech.     Cong.  Record,  Mar.  t»,  1910. 


How  Peary  OUtdned  Hit  Honora 


217 


Th?  distinguished  members  of  this  society  of  scientists  who 
were  supposed  to  sit  in  impartial  judgment  on  Peary's  cUims  for 
the  benefit  of  the  rest  of  mankind,  have  been  publicly  accused  of 
being  interested  judges,  and  of  the  fact  that  their  society  was  a 
contributor  to  Peary's  venture,  was  interested  in  its  success 
and  recipient  of  his  bounty.  These  accusations  as  far  as  known, 
have  never  been  denied.  These  men  have  been  publicly  called 
upon  by  other  mem  hers  of  the  National  Grec^raphic  Society  to 
deny  these  charges.  It  seems  strange  that  they  have  not  re- 
plied. The  present  analysis  indicates  that  their  decision  as  to 
Peaiy's  claim  was  not  an  impartial  scientific  conclusion,  but  a 
partisan  one.  The  exposure  made,  if  it  is  believed,  will  re-act 
upon  them  very  speedily,  and  their  acts  in  history  will  be 
determined  thereby. 

The  utter  worthlessness  of  this  Committee's  work  as  a 
scientific  report  can  not  be  questioned  by  fair-minded  men. 
A  smnmary  of  the  procedure  establishes  this  fact.  No  evidence 
was  given  to  the  public  of  such  nature  as  to  enable  scientists  to 
review  and  pass  judgment  upon  the  correctness  of  the  finding. 
Peary  presented  for  inspection  only  certain  alleged  copies  of 
his  longitude  observations  with  his  computations  thereon. 
None  of  these  computations  are  given  to  the  public.  Disin- 
terested scientists,  therefore,  cannot  review  them  and  tell  the 
public  whether  or  not  either  calculation  is  correct.  Not  a  word 
of  the  evidence,  that  was  submitted  to  the  Sub-committee  of  the 
Geographic  Society,  saw  the  light  again  until  over  a  year  later 
when  it  was  submitted  to  the  Congressional  Committee  in  March 
4,  1910.  The  circmn stances  under  which  these  three  men  as- 
sembled to  examine  these  alleged  proofs  make  their  repiort,  if 
it  be  not  genuine,  clearly  fraudulent  and  wicked.  But  the  truth 
will  be  seen  by  an  examination  of  the  testimony  of  Gannett, 
Tittmann,  and  Peary,  all  of  whom  appeared  before  the  Sub- 
committee of  Naval  Affairs.  Whatever  its  value,  the  report  of 
the  National  Geographic  Society  is  nevertheless  the  sole  founda- 
tion, upon  which  the  entire  super-structure  of  Peary's  claims 
and  honors  has  been  built.    Uptm  this  akme,  many  geographic 


218 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecovered 


societies  in  Europe  relied  and  acted.  Whether  or  not  the 
action  of  Conf^ress  was  well  founded  can  only  be  determined  by 
a  careful  analysis  of  the  Governmental  investigation  of  Peary's 
claims.    This  I  shall  attempt  to  present  in  the  following  pages. 

On  March  4, 1010,  public  opinion  was  erroneously  mioposed 
by  Peary's  friends  to  l)e  sufficiently  crystallized  to  risk  an 
attempt  to  obtain  from  Congress  a  proiiotion  and  an  appropria- 
tion for  Peaiy.  Consequently,  a  bill  was  introduced  for  this 
purpose  and  proofs  of  Peary's  achievement  were  supposed  to  be 
volunteered.  On  that  date  the  SulM»mmittee  of  Finvate  Bills 
of  the  Conmiittee  of  Naval  Affairs  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, assembled  to  hear  the  alleged  proofs,  and  temporarily 
at  least  to  see  them.  The  chairman  of  this  Committee  was 
Thomas  S.  Butler;  the  members  who  figured  most  prominently 
at  the  hearing  were  Messrs.  Roberts,  Gr^g  and  Macon.  For 
the  first  time  since  Peaiy  returned  from  the  Arctic  a  bona-fide 
effort  was  apparently  to  be  made  to  ascertain  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  his  claim.  This  Committee  had  two  sittings  nearly  a 
year  i4>art.  We  shall  examine  the  testimony  as  it  was  presented 
to  them. 

At  the  first  hearing  two  witnesses  appesre  ]  Tittmamiand 
Gannett,  both  of  whom  were  members  of  the  committee  of  the 
National  Geographic  Society,  who  originally  passed  on  Peaiy's 
claims.  Mr.  Tittnuum  first  gave  very  brief  testimony  about 
soundings  which  was  of  no  significance,  excusing  himself  from 
further  examination  on  the  ground  that  he  was  due  before  the 
Appropriation  Committee,  and  that  Mr.  Gannett  who  was 
present  could  give  all  the  other  facts.  He  did,  however,  make 
one  statement  that  indicates  to  what  extent  he  inquired  into 
Peary's  "proofs"  and  what  value  may  be  placed  upon  his 
decision  as  one  of  the  judges  of  Peary's  claim.  He  testified  as 
follows:* 

"The  Chairman. — "Tell  us  all  of  the  facts  which,  in  your 
judgment,  warranted  the  committee  that  examined  him  reach- 
ing the  conclusion  it  did  reach.' 

*Pt«e  fi.  Tert. 


How  Peary  Obtained  Hit  Honora 


«10 


"Mr.  TUtman. — 'Well,  now  as  to  the  committee.  When  all 
this  happened  /  too*  in  Europe;  when  I  came  back  I  found  I  had 
been  appointed  on  a  committee  of  the  National  Geographic 
Society.  That  was  not  an  official  matter  thougu.  and  /  toot 
very  busy  and  went  only  to  the  last  meeting  of  that  committee,  and 
at  that  meeting  Capt.  Peary  showed  me  the  actual  observations, 
the  astronomical  observations  that  he  k  ade  when  he  was  at  the 
Pole.  One  of  the  observations  of  the  sim  was  made  within 
about  three  miles  of  the  Pole.  He  then  continued  in  the  same 
direction — my  figures  now  are  not,  perhaps,  quite  accurate, 
because  I  do  not  remember  the  details  very  well.  I  think  he 
went  about  ten  miles  l)eyond  the  Pole,  and  he  was  getting  at  a 
lower  latitude  again;  he  went  then  what  we  might  call  gomg  to 
the  eastward;  if  you  had  a  map  before  you,  you  would  see  what 
I  mean;  he  went  to  the  eastward  and  there  made  some  more 
astronomical  obaervaiiona.  He  showed  me  the  actual  papers 
on  which  he  did  this,  and  I  asked  him  to  explain  it  to  me,  so 
that  I  looked  at  his  astronomical  observations,  saw  the  form 
in  which  they  were  kept  and  his  reductions,  and  felt  perfectly 
satisfied,  as  did  other  members  of  the  committee  who  had  an 
opportimity  to  go  over  the  details  that  /  did  not  hate,  because  I 
was  very  much  occupied  with  other  matters.' 

"Mr.  Gregg. — 'Those  that  he  showed  you,  then,  were  they 
the  original  entries,  made  at  the  time?" 

"Mr.  Tittmann. — 'Yes,  made  at  the  time  on  loose  slips  of 
paper]" 

The  tenor  of  this  testimony  indicates  that  Tittmann  took  very 
little  part  in  the  investigation,  leaving  it  almost  wholly  to 
Gaimett  and  Chester. 

He  also,  however,  gave  this  remarkable  testimony:* 
"Mr.  Tittmann. — 'I  think  I  have  already  stated  that  the 
line  of  soundings  which  ?lr  Peary  furnished  us  showed  us,  that 
he  had  been  within  five  miles  of  the  Pole;  but  besides  that,  I, 
of  course,  had  knowledge,  which  was  afterwards  verified;  that 
Mr.  Peary's  expedition  differed  from  all  previous  expeditions  in 
thir  ■ .  at  when  he  got  within  striking  distance  of  the  Pole — 
thac  k.,  within  alwut  140  miles  of  the  Pole,  he  had  with  him  a 
large  party  of  men  and  Capt.  Bartlett;  that  up  to  that  time  he 
had  kept  himself  in  absolute  reserve,  allowing  the  hard  work, 
the  pioneer  work  to  be  done  by  a  younger  man  and  a  stronger 
man,  and  when  he  reached  as  I  say,  a  point  which  I  considered 
*Fuge  i.  Test. 


220 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diseoirred 


within  striking  distance,  his  position  was  so  different  from  aii. 
previous  explorer  who  had  ever  gone — u^'ially  when  lh«'y  goj 
t  ,  veil  nobody  had  been  so  far  before,  anyhow,  when  the 
people  did  get  ther<\  they  were  single  or  exhausted  or  minus 
provisions,  but  Peary  got  within  140  miksof  the  Pole  and  had 
with  him  his  sleds  in  perfect  condition,  himself  in  perfect  con- 
dition plenty  of  provi.sions  and  it  was  '■  lioliday  jaunt  to  go 
?h',fc.  unless  some  accident  happened,  ke  ii  great  rift,  which 
In  v;.i  not  able  to  pass;  so  it  would  have  \"^n  absuni  if  he  hati 
not  g' 111 e  there.  His  evidence  of  luiving  been  wi  far  as  thnt  ^^f 
course  need  not  be  touch«*d  upon,  because  everyh<xly  knows 
fhiu  burtlett  and  thope  men  were  nith  him." 

'■".  cb  concentrated  wisdom  as  '  ompressed  into  the  above 
f)an^  ,  pb,  all  in  one  sentence,  <  seldom  pubhshed  Mr. 
Tittnia.nn,  it  must  \ie  remembered,  >  one  •  time  distinguished 
men  who  re  (<t> lightening  the  orld!  Mr.  Gannett  fully 
comprehended  this,  for  he  foUoweti  Tittmaiui  on  the  stand  ind 
testi6ed  as  follows  :* 

"Mr.  G(.  lett. — 'As  Titttnann  las  so  admirably  set  for<  ■. 
it  is  hardly  believable  that  i  man  wouM  sit  down  within  «© 
miles  of  the  North  P<»le,  and  do  that  ajler  he  had  iindertaken  t  <- 
uncertainties  and  dangers,  and  the  risks  to  "ife,  le;  ing  outside 
the  questi«ai  of  Peary's  per   mality.'" 

Here  are  fairly  exemplitied  the  deep  thoughts  of  two  the 
three  distinguishet!  men  who  passed  upon  Peary's  proofs  "It 
was  a  holiday  jaimi  '  to  go  orth  140  miles,  says  T  ;  tmai  i  so 
admirably  set  forth"  says  Gannett!  It  may  b*"  asketi  in  Ul 
courtesy  where  did  Mr.  Tittmann  get  this  astoi  ling  wisdom 
about  polar  ex;  loration? 

Such  knowle<.Ke  cannot  be  found  u     'ubluuitii  >    •"■  tant. 

Had  Nansen  comprehended  these  things,      e  m  ■        tb*-  worid 

would  have  been  differe'"tly  construe  ted       'J^an-v  i  ti.       lip 

Fram  far  north  on  the  I'  \ax  Sea  to  go  st       art  tiei       -th  aex   m- 

panied  by  Johansen.       le  had  many  a    vantages       er  "'s&vy. 

In  the  first  place  Pear^  's  organization  c«  mot  be  cuur      «d  to 

Nansen 's  in  eflBeiency.   in  system  aid       derly  arras      ment. 

Naiiscn  csCccdcu  ;ill  pr-viOn:;  explorers  iii         "  farthest  uorth. 

His  story  and  his  pi'  tures  c-orrt    >ond,  ii    icating       truthful 
Fkge  15. 


ffm    P^ary  Obtainef/  Hii  Ronort 


221 


f.ilo.     Hi-   par'v  sfniRgled  over  i).>lBr  iw  a    long  aa  human 

nduranor  and    lope  held  out,  in  a  desperate  attempt  to  make 

,s  much  as  "MO  miles"  north,     ft  was  impossible.     After  a 

train       (i  test  for  «5  days  alma«*t  unexampled  in  histoiy  and 

<.ve,    1^   129  ..liles  of  iiorthinK.  th«     abnuumed  the  attempt  in 

If  .  ..ir      Yet    I'loir   atf.ievement    surpji^sed    all   others.     "A 

K.Uda;.  jaunt"  says  Ti  ^mann,  one  of  the  judges;  "admirably 

^«'l  fortn"   ays  a  secor.    .udqe;  n  adt    n  five  days.     "It  would 

NO  h.  ^n    thiurd  -r  ho  ha<i  not  gom   there,"  says  Tittmann. 

ach  phrases  from  these  two  distinguished 

'  \nn  chair  grograph<  rs. " 

ifies  further:* 

'Tell  1  <  in  the  plain      '  inguage  what  you 

overj'.  the  r.   M.rts  you  saw,  the 

he  reasons  f*-  yoiu-  ronclusions.' 

came  from  his  homo  in  Portland, 

,       „.       ,        ^'^  '"  a  gripsack  and  his  instru- 

k.     I-irst,  he   net  the  committee  at  the  oflBce  of 

/-Aj-  •    i^L     '    — r   "^^  appoint  d  a  meeting  at  the 

of  Admiral  Chester,  who  was  a  memi  er  of  the  Committee. 

is  iournal  from  his 
in  a  little  l>ook,  a 


Coo. 

ritist 

Mr 

saw     md  . 

'•Oft'JM-,!.  'tl 

md 

a  t 


M 


mer 

th. 


i'fter  rea. 
^I^    hem 

aert  *■■ 
■     nri! 


'Ugiii. 


he  d 

.la 
Air.  1 
his  rei 


lograptiic  StK'iety  an( 


ply  sat  down  with  him  and  read 
s'iniil  records;  he  had  an  original  r  - 
0  book,  you  know,  at  that  time,  a- 
leing  the  original.' 
'He  read  the  journal  over  two  or  ttxt 
nil      we  all  read  it  together;  we  in 
'  or      ree  days  which  Bartlett  was  vn 
me  oi,    ()  the  pole,  and  all  of  the  way  bat 


id  all  the  earmarks 

before  Bartlett 
n  the  readings 
and  from  that 
ape  Columbia. 


^c  als.  had  his  astronomical  <  hservations  recomputed,  ex- 
anunod  them,  not  recomputed  for  he  had  ah-eady  computed 
the)  on  these  sheets.  He  !iad  one  sheet  for  a  set  of  observa- 
tions and  Admiral  Chester  recomputed  them.  I  do  not  know 
whether  Tittmann  did  or  not,  I  do  not  remember;  we  had  his 
'ne  of  soundings.  Thv  tidal  observations  I  never  saw.'" 
He  further  said: 

"I  saw  no  longitude  observations  and  my  imderstanding  is 
-  didn  t  take  any;  I  do  not  see  why  he  should.     He  kept  his 
^ircctjon  by  the  compass  and  the  direction  of  the  sun  at  noon 
time,  and  his  piupose  was  to  go  north. " 
•Page  7.  Test, 


I' 

i  i 

It 


222 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discyvered 


Some  testimony  was  given  at  the  second  hearing  by  Mr. 
Peary  on  the  subject  of  this  note  book  which  Gannett  said  they 
read.*  It  is  necessary  to  quote  it  here,  although  Peary  did  not 
appear  until  the  later  hearing. 

"Mr.  Dawaon. — 'Have  you  any  objection  to  allowing  the 
committee  to  see  the  original  notes  you  made  during  this  last 
journey,  and  during  the  observations  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
of  the  Pole?' 

"Mr.  Peary. — 'I  have  not.* 

"Mr.  Gregg. — 'Did  you  keep  them  in  a  book  or  on  slips  of 

paper?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'In  a  liook.' 

"Mr.  Dawaon. — 'And  since  then  you  have  taken  them  out 
of  the  book?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Yes,  Sir.'" 

Gannett's  testimony  then  conflicts  with  Peary's  and 
Tittmann's  as  to  the  shape  of  the  original  notes,  when  they  were 
submitted  to  these  three  men.  The  testimony  throughout  the 
inquiry  indicates  that  loose  leaves  only,  were  submitted  to  the 
Congressional  Committee,  which  Peary  said  he  tore  from  his 
diary  when  he  returned  to  the  ship.  Gannett  says  that  when 
he  saw  them  they  were  in  a  book!  Tittmann  says  they  were 
loose  leaves. 

The  following  quotation  illustrates  still  further  the  lack  of 
value  in  Gannett's  testimony  and  shows  the  superficial  manner 
of  Gannett's  examination  of  Peary  at  Chester's  home,  as  a  self- 
appointed  judge.f 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Did  he  tell  your  committee  what  his 
equipment  was  on  that  dash?' 

"Mr.  Gannutt.— 'Well,  he  had  two  sledges.' J 

"Mr.  iJofrcrta.— 'How  many  dogs?' 

"Mr.  Gannett.— 'I  think  36,  it  seems  to  me  86  or  82.'** 

"Mr.  R(Aeiia. — 'How  many  Eskimos?' 

"Mr.  Gannett.— Two  Eskimos.'*** 

''       In  one  place  when  Gannett  appeared  to  be  confused,  Mr. 

•Pjife  81,  Test. 
fTrstimoBy  Page  17. 
tPMry  Mtys  8.    Ed. 
♦♦Peary  a»y»  40.    Ed. 
♦♦♦Pe«ryi»yt4.    Ed. 


How  Peary  Obtained  Hie  Honors 


22S 


Grosvenor,  the  editor  of  the  National  Geographic  Society  who 

was  present  in  the  room,  tried  to  assist  by  volunteering  to  inject 

at  that  psychological  moment  some  expeH  information— where 

Gannett 's  knowledge  failed  him. 

"Mr.Boherts.—'nQiw  many  days  going  back  from  the  pole 
to  Cf-  1  Columbia? 

»u-  i*^'"j^T*^    (°"   "^''P^)    answers    {for  Gannett).— 'I 
thmk  16  days.      He  was  62  days  going  and  16  going  hack:* 

Gannett,  however,  was  quite  familiar  with  another  subject, 
and  perfectly  ready  to  inject  it  into  the  record.  Even  though 
the  subject  was  out  of  place,  immaterial  and  untrue,  this  fact 
indicates  at  least  the  bent  of  his  mind.  When  Gannett  was 
asked  by  Mr.  Butler  if  he  could  have  detected  whether  Peary's 
records  were  faked  or  not,  replied  as  follows :  ' 

"Mr.  Gannett. — 'Well,  it  would  depend  upon  a  wh<Je  lot  of 
thm^.  Now  any  scientific  man  reading  Cook's  narrative  sets 
him  down  as  a  faker,  because  his  narrative  don't  tie  together; 
he  gets  his  midnight  sun  rising  on  the  wrong  day;  his  notes  about 
It  show  he  IS  traveling  south  instead  of  north  and  he  gets  the 
longitude  to  the  mmute  when  he  couldn't  get  them  within  lO" 
all  that  sort  of  thing,  you  know.  Now  whether,  of  course,  a 
man  who  Imew  more,  if  he  attempted  to  fake,  could  avoid  some 
of  those  things;  but  could  he  avoid  them  all?" 

This  same  Mr.  Gannett  who  so  eagerly  says  that  Cook 
could  not  teU  his  longitude  withm  10»  had  a  moment  before 
testified  as  follows  in  r^ard  to  Peary  when  asked  about  hit 
observations  for  longitude:  "I  saw  no  longitude  observations, 
and  my  understanding  is  he  didn't  make  any.  I  do  not  see  why 
he  should.  He  kept  his  direction  by  the  compass  and  the 
direction  of  the  sun  at  noon  time,  /vnd  his  purpose  was  to  go 
north. " 

It  is  theoretically  possible,  that  one  may  go  from  Cape 
Columbia  to  the  North  Pole  without  taking  observations  for 
longitude,  or  without  even  knowing  the  variation  of  his  ccmipass. 
But  is  it  practical  to  do  so?  Would  anyone  attempt  such  a  trip 
without  this  important  knowledge,  if  he  really  wished  to  reach 
the  North  Pole  and  return?  If  one  should  start  frtmi  land 
♦Peary  Mjn  S6  foing— 31  days  to  Bartlett  Camp-.S  moK  to  the  Pole.    Ed. 


•■*•' 


:!?V 


1^' 


iiit 


m 


224 


^a»  <Ac  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


carrying  70th  meridian  time,  shaping  his  course  as  near  as 
possible  due  north,  and  occasionally  thereafter  by  noon  observa- 
tions ascertain  his  local  time,  he  might  tell  by  the  difference 
between  his  local  and  his  70th  meridian  time  on  which  side  of 
that  meridian  he  then  was.  Knowing  this  lauch,  he  might  with 
some  degree  of  knowledge  reshape  his  compass  course  northward 
from  the  meridian  he  was  then  on,  or  he  could  possibly  again 
reach  or  cross  the  70th  meridian.  In  this  way  he  might  zigzag 
his  way  northward.  But  as  he  advances  northward  the  distance 
between  the  meridians  constantly  grows  less;  the  errors  in 
minutes  of  time  multiply  rapidly  in  miles,  and  the  di£Sculties  of 
obtaining  correct  local  time  gradually  increase;  so  that  this 
method  of  navigation  might,  before  he  was  aware,  get  him  on 
the  opposite  side  of  the  globe.  Nevertheless,  with  suificient 
skill  to  continue  to  make  northings,  regardless  of  any  meridian 
he  would,  of  course,  eventually  reach  the  Pole.  But  what  does 
this  prove  except  its  possibility?  No  navigator  who  sincerely 
desired  to  reach  the  North  Pole  and  return  would  adopt  such 
methods.  A  navigator  would  plan  to  know  his  position  and 
the  variation  of  his  compass  constantly  in  order  to  make  as 
straight  a  line,  north  and  south  as  possible  to  save  both  distance 
and  time. 

In  other  words,  the  gist  of  this  testimony  of  Gannett's 
would  appear  to  be  that  Peary  could  tell  his  exact  longitude, 
without  any  observations,  and  march  in  a  straight  line  directly 
north  to  the  Pole  on  the  70th  meridian,  but  that  Cook  who  was 
traveling  on  the  magnetic  meridian  96°  west,  where  the  compass 
is  constant  coulfJ  not  tell  his  longitude  even  by  observations 
"within  10  degrees."  Hardly  anything  could  expose  the  bias 
of  this  man  (self-appointed  one  of  the  judges  who  passed  on 
Peary's  claims)  better  than  this  voluntary  injection  into  his 
answer  the  uncalled  for  and  immaterial  matter  showing  a  pre- 
judice against  Cook,  unsuppressed  and  undisguised.  TL' 
gratuitous  fling  at  an  absent  claimant  (Cook)  by  a  witne< 
supporting  his  own  decision  as  a  judge,  does  not  of  course  affect 
any  truthful  testimony  he  may  have  given,  but  it  would  seem  to 


^ 


Haw  Peary  Obtained  His  Honors 


225 


indicate  that  he  was  temperamentaUy  unfitted  for  the  position 
to  which  he  was  self-selected. 

Gannett  further  testified  that  no  effort  was  made  by  the 
Geographic  Committee  to  examine  anyone  but  Peary,  although 
many  of  those  who  went  on  the  expedition  were  avaUable 
Henson  was  with  Peary  constantly  on  the  Pohir*Sea.     He  f)\ao 
kept  a  diary. 

It  soon  became  evident  to  the  naval  committee  at  their 
firet  hearing  that  Peary's  friends  did  not  propose  to  submit  any 
original  papers,  although  they  professed  to  be  willing  to  do  so 
providing  the  contents  could  be  kept  secret,  which  was  obviously* 
impossible  m  a  public  hearing.  This  Star  Cha  iuier  suggestbn 
was  instantly  objected  to  by  some  members  of  the  Committee 
consequently  the  hearing  was  suddenly  termi.  iited,  and  the 
Committee  did  not  again  convene  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
tinuing the  exammation,  imtil  nearly  a  year  thereafter. 

Meanwhile  additional  missionary  work  appeared  necessary 
on  Peaiy's  part  if  anything  satisfactory  was  to  be  expected  from 
Congress.    A  more  eflScient  lobby  was  at  once  organised,  and 
after  about  ten  months  a  sufficient  number  of  votes  was  secured 
to  carry  the  measure.     Peary's  friends  were  apparently  ready 
to  submit  to  the  Congressional  Committee  such  date  as  were 
demanded.    Consequently,  the  Sub-committee  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Naval  Affairs  of  the  House  of  Representatives  re- 
sunied  Its  sitting  on  Januaiy  7. 1911.  for  the  purpose  of  examin- 
ing whatever  "proofs"  Peary  and  his  friends  had  to  submit 
At  the  second  hearing  Peary  was  the  principal  witness. 
He  was  supported  briefly  by  Tittmann  who  simply  presented  a 
computer  from  his  department  named  Hugh  C.  MiteheU  who 
testified  as  to  a  diyam  he  had  drawn,  and  to  compuUtions 
that  he  and  Duval  had  made.    Admiral  Chester,  the  third 
member  of  the  Geographic  Committee  was  absent  from  the 

T^^y\  ^'  ®"'^*''  '^*  *=^«^i™»a«.  Mr.  Bates,  who  introduced 
the  bUI  for  Peary  s  promotion,  and  Mr.  Englebright.  appeared 
veiy  friendly  to  Peaiy's  interests.  At  some  stages  of  the  pro- 
ceedmg.  it  seemed  that  obstruction,  were  created  in  older  to 


226 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacocered 


exclude  some  facts  from  the  record.  Mr.  Macon  opposed  the 
bill  and  subjected  Peary  to  some  severe  grilling.  History  is 
greatly  indebted  to  Mr.  Roberts  for  getting  into  the  record  much 
valuable  informatiou  which,  but  for  him,  would  have  probably 
never  seen  the  light.  With  courteous  persistency  and  skill, 
he  drew  from  an  imwillmg  witness  many  facts  valuable  to  the 
F^story  of  this  case,  and  to  those  who  may  wish  to  know  the 
truth. 

This  examination  was  in  some  respects  peculiar.  Peaiy, 
the  claimant  was  not  merely  the  principal  witness,  he  was  the 
only  witness  as  to  facts  of  observation.  If  he  chose  to  say  that 
he  traveled  on  a  certain  day  a  certain  number  of  miles,  that  the 
day  was  clear,  the  wind  fair,  the  ice  smooth,  the  dogs  fresh,  the 
temperatiue  just  right  for  easy  sledging,  or  in  any  other  way  to 
ue;icribe  conditions  to  suit  himself,  no  witness  was  called  to 
verify  or  to  contradict  him,  and  nothing  was  placed  in  the 
record  except  such  information  as  he  himself  furnished  on  these 
subjects.  When  Peary  said  he  took  an  observation  at  noon, 
June  6,  Henson  had  he  been  there,  would  probably  have  said 
as  he  did  in  The  World's  Work  that  it  was  not  true, — that  no 
matter  where  they  were  on  that  day  at  noon,  no  obaervaiion  waa 
taken  or  could  have  been  taken,  as  the  sun  was  not  seen  that  day. 
When  Peary  said  he  started  out  on  a  trip  after  6  p.  m.,  on  the  6th 
of  April,  and  made  a  journey  of  ten  miles  and  did  not  return 
until  6  a.  m.  on  the  7th,  being  absent  twelve  hours,  and  then 
immediately  started  on  a  second  journey  8  miles  out  and  back, 
6  hours  more,  or  18  hours  altogether,  Henson  would  have  said 
that  Peary  was  not  absent  from  Camp  Jessup  on  the  6th  at  all, 
and  but  one  hour  on  the  7th,  or  during  the  whole  30  hours  at 
that  camp.  When  Peary  said  that  Camp  Jessup  was  3  miles 
from  the  Pole  and  he  made  these  excursions  in  different 
directions  as  a  matter  of  surety  in  hitting  the  Pole,  Henson 
would  have  said  that  Peary  gave  orders  on  the  7th,  that  the 
North  Pole  flag,  be  shifted  about  150  feet  from  its  first  location 
to  conform  to  the  result  of  a  more  accurate  series  of  observations, 
and  that  i*  was  finally  raised  "just  behind  the  igloo"  as  the 


Ui- 


How  Peary  Obtained  Hit  Honora 


827 


exact  location  of  the  North  Pole.  Henson  would  probably 
have  contradicted  Peary  on  every  essential  point,  as  to  hours 
and  distance  traveled  each  day,  the  weather  and  ice  conditions, 
etc.,  for  the  entire  five  days  after  leaving  Bartlett  Camp.* 
This  would  have  been  (as  it  is  in  Henson's  articles)  almost 
conclusive  evidence  that  Peary's  whole  stoiy  of  reaching  the 
Pole  is  probably  a  creation. 

It  is  impossible  that  history  will  be  finally  made  by  re- 
corded testimony  so  constructed.  While  there  is  in  this  record 
no  testimony  of  opposing  witnesses,  it  could  not  be  expected 
that  Peary  would  appear  before  the  Committee  to  show  them 
he  did  not  go  to  the  Pole.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  obvious  that 
he  would  oflFer  only  such  evidence  as  would  tend  to  establish 
his  claim,  for  that  was  his  purpose  in  appearing  before  them. 
If  it  were  the  truth  which  was  wanted,  instead  of  a  favorable 
record,  Hendon  could  have  been  called— and  also  Bartlett, 
Pritchard,  Whitney,  Borup,  McMillan,  and  Prancke.  They 
were  all  available  and  had  they  been  properly  examined,  no 
doubt  the  truth  on  many  points  could  have  been  evolved. 

It  is  not  proposed  at  this  time  to  check  Peary's  statements 
with  Henson  or  others  who  have  contradict      him  in  other 
publications,  but  oidy  to  check  him  with  himself.     The  only 
positive  light  that  could  be  expected  to  be  extracted  from  Peaiy 
was  as  to  whether  or  not  he  was  testifying  truthfully.    If  in  the 
slightest  degree  it  can  be  discovered  that  he  was  falsifying,  that 
he  was  attempting  to  support  an  evidently  concocted  story,  his 
testimony  aU  falls  to  the  groimd  as  absolutely  worthless,  and 
the  whole  plot  should  be  condemned  as  a  fraud.     Peary  ap- 
peared before  this  Sub-committee  as  a  voluntary  witness  to  tell 
his  story  and  present  his  alleged  proofs.     It  was  his  case.    But 
it  does  not  impress  one  who  reads  the  testimony  that  Peary  was 
frank  and  candid,  except  when  narrating  facts  unknown  to 
others,  he  seemed  reserved  and  under  restraint.     It  was  im- 
portant that  the  Sub-committee  of  Naval  afFairs  should  know 
the  basis  of  the  decision  of  the  Geographic  Society,  and  how 
•Chapter  8. 


228 


Hcu  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


thorough  an  investigation  had  been  made.  If  it  had  been  a 
genui:.e  affair,  above-board  and  honest,  Peary  would  undoubted- 
ly have  been  only  too  glad  to  have  it  all  in  the  record,  but  his 
manner,  his  poor  memory,  and  lack  of  candor  indicated  a  desire 
to  conceal.  Mr.  Roberts  struggled  hard  at  times  to  get  him  to 
make  positive  statements.  To  illustrate  Peary's  attitude  a  few 
pages  will  be  quoted  in  full:* 

"Mr.  Roberts. — *Now,  there  is  one  point  I  forgot  when  I 
was  asking  some  questions  before.  I  would  like  to  go  into 
examination  of  your  records  made  by  the  Geographic  Society's 
committee,  if  you  have  no  objection?  I  would  like  to  have 
from  you  just  what  was  said  and  done. 

'Let  me  premise  that  by  asking  you  this  question:  Did  you 
ask,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  Geographic  Society  to  pass  upon 
your  record?  In  other  words,  was  the  initiative  taken  by  you 
to  get  some  reports  on  the  records  of  your  trip?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'No.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'It  came  from  other  parties;  you  were 
invited  by  the  Geographic  Society  to  present  your  records?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'I  was.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'I  understand  you  first  sent  them  through 
a  Mr.  Nichols,  a  statement  of  some  sort,  sent  it  from  Portland 
or  somewhere  in  Maine.     Is  that  the  fact?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'I  sent  them  papers;  yes.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'Do  you  object  telling  us  what  those  papers 
were?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Well,  I  will  suggest  as  to  that,  that  the 
members  of  that  sub-committee  who  had  those  papers — ^and 
it  is  probably  on  their  records — could  give  that  information 
with  absolute  accuracy.  I  don't  know  that  I  have  a  memoran- 
dum of  what  those  papers  were.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'I  would  say  in  reply  to  that,  that  we  sought 
those  papers  from  that  committee  last  spring,  and  they  declined 
to  give  them  to  us  on  the  ground  that  they  were  under  a  certain 
injunction  as  to  secrecy  and  could  not  give  them  out.  That 
is  why  I  asked  you  about  them.' 

"  Capt.  Peary.— 'I  would  prefer  that  that  question  would  be 
taken  up  with  the  sub-committee.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — *I  am  not  asking  you  as  the  sub-committee, 
but  whether  you  sent  them?' 

*Fk«e  128  Tcft. 


'a 


II 


How  Peary  Obtained  Uia  Honort 


?S» 


of  course,  that 

mind  as  to  the 

o  that  there  was 

uer  you  had  ob- 


"Capt.  Peary  (contintdng). — 'As  to  their  record,  the  r<>cord 
of  what  was  sent  to  them,  and  what  their  examination  was.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Have  you  any  record  of  what  you  sent  by 
Mr.  Nichols?" 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'I  cannot  say  whether  I  have  or  not;  I 
'nill  look  and  see.' 

"  ^r.  Roberte.— 'You  knew  at  that  t?V 
there  was  a  question  looming  up  in  the 
truth  of  the  claims  made  by  Dr.  Cook,  ai 
some  question  in  the  public  mind  as  to  wh 
tained  the  Pole.' 

"Capt.  Peary. — The  controvenqr  was  on.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — "You  knew  a  controversy  was  on  at  the 
time  you  were  asked  to  submit  your  proofs  to  the  Geographic 
Society?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Yes.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'In  reply  to  that  request  of  the  Geographic 
Society  you  sent  them  something  by  Mr.  Nichols?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Yi^.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'And  you  do  not  wish  to  tell  us  now  what 
it  was?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'I  could  not  tell  you,  that  I  know  of,  now.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'And  you  did  not  keep  any  copy  of  it?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'And  I  would  prefer,  as  I  said,  that  ^e 
question  as  to  what  was  said  to  the  committee  and  what  action 
they  took  would  be  put  to  the  committee.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'As  long  as  you  have  not  copies  of  it  and, 
as  I  understand  it,  you'  do  not  want  to  trust  your  memory 
to  tell  us  just  what  you  sent,  we  will  go  on  a  step.  Did  the 
(Jeographic  Society's  committee  act  upon  that  information  you 
sent  by  Mr.  Nichols  at  that  time?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'How  far  they  acted  I  can  not  tell  you 
o£Fhand.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'What  did  you  next  hear  from  that  com- 
mittee, after  sending  them  those  documents  or  that  information 
or  whatever  it  was  that  you  did  send?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 1  cannot  say  that  I  heard  from  the  com- 
mittee, except  a  request  to  come  <m  to  that  committee.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — That  is,  that  you  come  on,  that  was  the 
request?' 

"  Capt.  Peary.— Thai  I  come  on  and  meet  the  conmiittee. " 

"Mr.  Roberts.— "^ov  did  you  get  that  request?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'I  can  hardly  say  whether  by  wire  or  letter, 
and  I  do  not  recall  from  whom  tine  request  came.' 


230 


Ba8  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacowred 


Mr.  iioftert*.— Was  there  anything  in  that  request  to 
come  down  to  give  you  the  idea  that  what  you  had  ab«ady  sent 
was  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  them?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Not  that  I  recaU;  no.' 

"Mr.  Robert^.— 'I  do  not  know  that  it  is  really  pertinent 
to  the  thought,  but  I  will  ask  you  the  question  and  you  can 
answer  it  or  not :  What  did  you  think,  after  having  sent  down 
a  statement  L  the  committee,  when  they  requested  you  to 
come  and  bring  your  originals?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— '1  thought  when  I  sent  my  material  to  the 
committee  that  I  would  come  before  the  committee  later  with 
my  mstruinents  and  my  notebooks.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'That  is,  then  you  did  not  expect  that  the 
daU  that  you  sent  by  Mr.  Nichols  would  be  sufficient 

ii«!?^*D^'°'^'"~^®*'*"*®  ''  ^**  "***  *"  *>'  ™y  records.' 
„j^^-  Roberta.— 'Did  it  purport  to  be  a  pmt  of  the  record?' 
Capt.  Peary. — *Yes.' 

"Mr.  Reherta. — 'It  purported  to  be  only  a  part,  and  put 
them  on  notice 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'That  1  was  ready  to  appear  personally 
before  them.'  r        i-  ■/ 

"Mr.  iiofcerto.— 'There  was  a  statement  of  that  sort  con- 
tamed  m  It,  was  there?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'That  would  be  my  recollection.  I  know 
the  Idea  was  that  I  was  ready  to  appear  before  them.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'Yon  got  a  request  or  an  invitation  to 
come  down.  Do  you  recollect  how  that  was  worded:  what 
they  wanted  you  to  do?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'I  do  not,  but  probably  I  have  the  com- 
munication, whether  a  telegram  or  a  letter.' 

"»¥^'  ^^«^*— 'In  resp*)nse  to  that  you  came  down?' 
Capt.  Peary. — 'I  did.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'And  what  did  you  bring  with  you?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— '1  brought  with  me  my  instruments  and 
the  material  that  I  have  here  to-day.' 

"Mr.  Robti,ta.—'iyid  you  bring  any  more  than  you  have 
shewn  the  committee  thus  far?' 

"  Capt.  Peary.— 'I  brought  all  of  my  photographs,  or  nearly 
all  of  them,  and,  I  think  my  negative^     I  am  not  sure  of  that.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'Wh&t  time  did  y.  \  reach  the  city.  Mr. 
Peary? 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'I  could  not  say.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'Did  you  get  here  in  the  morning?' 


How  Peary  Obtained  Bit  Boiurrt 


281 


"CaT^t.  Peary.— 'I  came  from  Boston,  I  should  say.  on  the 
Congressional  Limited,  but  what  tune  I  got  in  I  could  not  say." 

"Mr.  Roberta.-- 1{  you  had  hick,  and  did  not  get  hung  up 
on  the  river,  you  would  get  here  the  next  morning? 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'Yes;  I  got  here  sometime  the  next  day.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'What  did  you  do  when  you  arrived  in  the 
city;  where  did  you  go?' 

I'  CajA     Peary. — *I  do  not  recall  what  my  movements  were.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'Perhaps,  I  will  ask  some  leading  questions, 
as  the  lawyers  say,  and  suggest  in  my  question  the  answer. 
You  went  to  the  Geographic  Society's  rooms  sometime  in  the 
forenoon?* 

"Cajft.  Peary. — 'I  do  not  remember  when  I  went  there. 
The  members  of  the  board  can  tell.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'It  was  that  same  day  you  got  in?' 

"Capt.    Peary.— 'Yea.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'You  went  to  the  Geographical  Society's 
rooms?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'l^o;  I  think  not.  The  Geographic 
Soaety  8  rooms.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'Yea;  on  Sixteenth  Street.' 

"Capt.  Peary.— That  I  caimot  say.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'WeU,  let  me  ask  this  question;  Where  did 
you  meet  the  committee  that  had  been  appointed  to  investigate?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — "The  meeting  of  the  committee  was  at 
Admutu  Chester's  house.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'No;  where  did  you  meet  them?  I  am  not 
askmg  the  place  of  the  meeting  of  the  committee,  but  where  did 
you  meet  the  committee,  or  any  of  its  members?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— There,  as  I  recall  it.  The  members  of 
that  committee  can  tell  you.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'I  would  like  to  have  the  best  recollection 
you  have  about  when  you  first  saw  any  of  the  members  of  the 
committee  and  where.' 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'That  can  be  put  down.  I  will  endeavor 
to  answer  that 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'No;  I  want  you  to  get  your  recollection 
now.' 

''Capt.  Peary.— 'I  do  not  recall  about  that,  about 
meeting  any  members  of  the  committee.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'You  would  not  want  to  say  that  you  did 
not  meet  t-a  o  of  the  members  of  the  committee  at  the  room  of 
the  Geographical  Society,  would  you?' 


SS2 


Ha$  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


"Capt.  Pear^  —'I  would  not  want  to  lay  I  did  nor  did  not.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'Vfell  we  will  go  a  step  further.    You  did 
finally  go  to  the  house  of  Admiral  Chester?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— '1  went  to  the  house  of  Admiral  Chester.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'And  three  niemliers  of  that  aub-committee 
were  there  with  you?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — They  were;  yes.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — *0r  arrived  soon  after  you  arrived?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Yea.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'You  are  not  certain  just  how  you  all  got 
there?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'fio.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Can  you  give  us  anything  definite  as  to 
the  time  of  day  you  got  there?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— No;  I  could  not." 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'Before  lunch  or  after?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'No.' 

"Mr.  RoberU.— 'You  could  not  teU  that?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'No.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Can  you  recall  how  long  you  were  there?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'Until  sometime  in  the  evening.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'yihaX.  did  you  do  while  there  with  the 
committee?     I  want  to  find  out  how  this  examination  of  the 

? roofs  was  made.  This  is  what  I  am  trying  to  pet  at,  Mr. 
'eary.' 

"Capt.  Peary. — There  again,  as  the  members  of  the 
committee  are  accessible,  I  woiUd  prefer  to  have  them  take  that 
up,* 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'No;  I  want  to  have  your  recollection,  if 
you  can  give  it.' 

"CajA.  Peary.— 'I  recall  that  I  was  there  at  Admiral 
Chester's  house  with  the  members  of  the  committee,  and  some 
others,  I  think,  came  in  in  addition  to  the  membei-s  of  the  sub- 
committee and  I  remember,  too,  that  I  was  there  until  in  the 
evening;  I  could  not  say  how  late.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Have  you  exhibited  to  the  sub-committee 
that  original  memoranda  that  you  have  shown  us?  Did  they 
read  it?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— This  book?' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Yes;  that  you  have  shovra  us.' 

"CajA.  Peary.— 'I  think  that  is  covered  in  the  hearing  of 
yesterday  or  the  day  before.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — That  you  exhibited  it  to  that  committee?' 


Bow  Peary  Obtained  His  Honora 


28S 


"Capt.  Peary.- That  I  exhibited  it  to  the  committee.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.—' And  they  read  it?" 

"Capt.  Peary.— -'Uov  much  the  different  :  .  mbers  of  the 
committee  reatl  I  cannot  say.* 

"Mr.^  Roberts. — 'And  you  Huhniitted  the  data  of  your 
astronomical  ohservations?' 

"Capt.  Peary.-  That  I  had  there.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.—'You  did  submit  at  that  time?* 

"Capt.  Peary.— That  is  my  impression.  I  hud  it  there 
w  ith  me.  and  I  presimie  thev  saw  |K>rtions  of  it,  ]>erhaps  all  of  it.* 

"Mr.  Roberta. ~*D'\d  they  verify  any  of  the  computations 
'Ti  your  presence;  that  is,  figure  over  again  the  necetuarv  com- 
putations?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— -The  only  thing  that  I  can  say  is  that  I 
thmk  Prof  Gannett  was  riaking  some  figures.  Whether  he 
carried  out  the  full  computations  or  not  I  cannot  say.* 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Do  you  recall  Admiral  Chester  going 
over  the  astronomical  computations?* 

"Capt.  Peary.— '1  remember  Admiral  Chester  having  a 
chart  showing  the  projection  of  the  sun.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'How  many  hours  would  you  say,  as  the 
l>est  estimate  you  can  give,  you  were  there  with  that  com- 
mittee?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'VfeU,  I  should  say  that  I  was  there  the 
greater  portion  of  the  day.* 

"Mr.  Roberts.— '1  don't  know  that  we  have  it  here.  Do  you 
recall  when  it  was  that  you  were  there?  Do  you  recall  the 
month  or  the  day?' 

"Capt.  Peary.—'lt  was  some  time  in  October,  I  should  say.' 

"■**/•  Roberts.— 'Did  you  brinj^  with  you  to  Admiral 
Chester's  house,  your  instruments?' 

"Capt.  Penry.—'No.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'YHiere  were  they?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— They  were  at  the  station.* 

"iJ'.  Roberts. — 'Did  the  committee  see  those  instruments?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— They  did.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'Did  they  see  them?    Where  did  they  see 

them?'  "^ 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'At  the  sUtion.' 
''Mr.  Roberts.- Did  you  go  with  them?* 
"Cap*.  Peary.— 'I  did.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Do  you  recall  what  time  you  got  to  the 
station?' 


284 


Hob  the  North  Pole  Been  Dueovered 


"(  apt.  Peary. — *No  sir;  I  do  not,  except  it  was  pretty  well 
alonK  in  the  evening.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.—  ' It  was  after  dark?' 

"Capt.Pear,,.—'Jt  uaa  after  dark.' 

"Mr.  ii-y'  ,t. — "When  you  got  to  the  station  what  did  you 
or  the  fommittt'e  do  with  regard  to  the  instruments?' 

''Capt.  Peary.-'l\ieg  your  oardon,  what  was  that?' 

"Jfr.iiofcert*.-  'First,  how  did  the  instruments  come  down?* 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'They  came  in  a  trunk.' 

"Mr.  Rf^HTte.—'Yoxir  trunk?' 

''Capt.  Peary- 'Yes.' 

"Mr.  Robertn. — 'After  you  reached  the  station  and  foimd 
the  trunk  what  <li<l  you  and  the  committee  do  with  regard  to 
the  instruments?' 

"Capt.  Peary. — 'I  should  say  that  we  opened  the  trunk 
there  in  the  station.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — That  is,  in  the  baggage  room  of  the 
station?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Yea.' 

"Mr.   Roberta.— 'Were   the   instruments   all   taken   out?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— Th&t  I  could  not  say.  Members  of  the 
committee  will  probably  remember  that  better  than  I.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'Was  any  test  of  those  instruments  made 
by  any  member  of  the  committee  to  ascertain  whether  or  not 
the  Kistruments  were  accurate?' 

''Capt.  Peary.— 'Thsit  I  could  not  say.  I  should  imagine 
that  it  would  not  be  possible  to  make  tests  there.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'Were  those  instruments  ever  in  the 
(possession  of  the  committee  other  than  the  inspection  at  the 
station?' 

"CajA.  Peary.— 'Not  to  my  knowledge.' 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'Has  this  original  memorandum  you  read 
from  ever  been  left  in  the  hands  of  the  committee?* 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'No.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'UAve  they  ever  had  copies  of  it?* 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Yes;  I  think  so.' 

"Mr.  Roberta.— 'Vfhen  did  they  get  copies?' 

''  Capt.  Peary.— 'That  I  cannot  say.* 

"Mr.  Roberta. — 'Before  or  after  they  had  made  a  report  to 
the  society?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'That  I  could  not  say.* 

The  foregoing  indicates  how  difficult  it  was  to  get  positive 


How  Peary  OUained  Hit  Honors 


8&U 


statementfl  into  the  record,  but  loroe  suci  «rere  obtained  never- 
thelen.     Peary  teitifies  (page  76) — as  fot  ma: 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'Capt.  Peary,  whp*.  you  returned  from 
your  daah  the  fint  people  you  saw  were  t  hose  at  the  ship?' 

"Capt.  Peary— 'Yea,  Sir." 

"Mr.  Roberts. —'You,  of  course,  told  them  of  the  trip?" 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'J^o;  I  did  not,  I  did  not  go  into  any  de- 
tails in  regard  to  the  trip.' 

"Mr.  Roberts.— 'Did  you  tell  them  you  had  reached  the 

"Capt.  Peary.— '1  told  Bartlett;  no  one  else.' 

"Mr.  fjoftert*.— 'I  recall  reading  the  papers  that  on  the 
way  from  the  place  where  the  ship  wmtered,  somewhere  on  the 
return  joum*^,  you  met  some  sportsman.     Was  it  Whitney?' 

"Capt.  Pearp.—'l  met  Whitney  at  EUh,  down  in  the 
whale  sound  region.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Did  you  say  anything  to  him  about 
reaching  the  Pole?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'No,  Sir.' 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'Did  he  make  any  inquiiy  of  you?* 

"Capt.  Peary.— '1  do  not  think  he  did.    I  do  not  recall." 

The  above  statement  that  he  told  no  one  but  Bartlett  about 
re4u.hing  the  It-ie  may  be  true  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  it  cannot 
be  reconc" .  ^  with  the  following  taken  from  Peary's  book 
North  Pot         .:  "JH-^m-. 

"Bori.»  ,1-,  •  th  the  aid  of  the  Eskini'S,  built  at  Cape 
Columbia  q  .  ■^t.^-^i*  at  monument,  oonsistiug  of  a  pile  of  stones 
formed  rounu  « '  <)aae  of  a  guide-post  mule  of  iledge  planks, 
with  four  arms  pointing  true  north,  ir  <ri).  vuit,  and  west — the 
whole  supported  and  guyed  by  niunerouB  strands  of  heavy 
sounding  wire.  On  each  arm  \->  n  cc^per  plate,  with  an  in- 
scription punched  n.  it  On  the  jasten  «  m  is,  'C^>e  Morris 
K.  Jessup,  May  >  1900,  ir75  miles;'  (m  the  southern  arm  is, 
'Cape  Columbia,  June  6,  1906;'  on  the  western  ann  is,  'Cape 
Thomas  H.  Hubbard,  Juiy  1,  1906,  225  miles;'  on  the  northern 
NORTH  POLE,  APRIL  6,  1909,  4t8  miles.'      Below 


arm. 


these  arms  in  a  i^ame  cov^reH  with  ^ass  to  protect  it  from  the 
weather,  is  a  record  contain'  ig  the  fcdlowing: 


2S0 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecovered 


PEARY  ARCTIC  CLUB  NORTH  POLE  EXPEDITION.  1906. 


..I 


S.  S.  Rooaevelt.  June  12. 1009.  This 
monument  marks  the  point  of  depart- 
uie  and  return  of  the  sled^  expedition 
of  the  Piiary  Arctic  Club,  which  in  the 
■pring  of  1900  ATTAINED  THE 
NORTH  POLE. 

The  members  of  the  expedition  tak- 
ing part  in  the  sledse  work  were  Peary. 
Uartlett.  Goodseil,  Marvin,*  McMillan. 
Borup.  Henaon. 

The  various  sledge  divisions  left  here 
February  ieSand  March  1  and  returned 
from  March  18  to  April  tS. 

The  Club's  Steamer  Roosevelt  win- 
tered at  Cape  Shnrician.  73  miles  east 
of  here. 

R.  E.  Peary.  U.  S.  N. 


Com.  R.  E.  Peary.  U.  S.  N.  Comdg. 

Expedition. 
Capt.  R.  A.  Bartlett.  Master  of  Rooae- 
velt. 
Chief  Ensr..  Geo.  A.  Waidwell. 
SuigetMi,  J.  Goodaell. 
Prof.  Rosa  G.  Marvin,  Aaaiatant. 
Pro* .  D.  B.  McMillan.  Aasistant. 
George  Borup.  Aaaiatant. 
M.  A.  Henaon.  Aasiatant. 
Chas.  Percy.  Steward. 
Mate,  Thomaa  Gushue. 
Roaun,  John  Connora. 
S^man.  John  Coadey. 
Seaman.  John  Batnea. 
Seaman,  Dennia  Murphey. 
Seaman,  Geor^gr  ?ercy. 
ind  Engr..  Baniu  Scott. 
Fireman.  James  Bently. 

Patrick  Joyce. 

Pktridc  Skeana. 

John  Wiaeman. 

"On  the  18th  McMillan  an  Borup  with  five  Eskimos  and 
SIX  sledge.s  had  departed  ..  the  Greenland  coast  to  establish 
depots  of  supplies  in  case  my  party  should  be  obliged  to  make 
tidal  readmgs  at  Cape  Morris  Jessup.  I,  therefore,  at  once 
started  two  Eskimos  off  for  Greenland  with  a  sounding  appara- 
tus and  a  letter  informing  h  ^Ulan  and  Borup  of  our  final 
aucceaa. " 

Borup  and  McMillan  understood  what  the  mformation 
was,  which  that  letter  (sent  to  them  on  the  Greenland  coast) 
contained  for  Borup  in  his  book  says  he  understood  it  perfectly. f 
Is  this  telling  someone  else  besides  Bartlett?  Further,  Borup 
and  those  men  whose  names  were  attached  to  the  record  in  that 
glass  case  at  Cape  Columbia  certainly,  knew  wh.'Jt  "North  PoU 
April  6, 1909,  41S  miles  "  meant !  And  they  alao  knew  what  the 
record  meant  by  the  words:  "This  monument  marks  the 
point  of  departure  and  return  of  the  sledge  expedition  of  the 
Peary  Arctic  Club,  which  in  the  spring  of  1900  attained  the  North 
PoU."  Here  is  clearly  a  conflict  of  thought  on  the  part  of 
Peary,  indicating  a  lapse  of  memory.  Furthermore,  Whitney 
did  not  return  tc  civilization  for  weeks  after  Peaiy.    He  left 

'Drowned  April  10.  returning  from  86"  88'  N.  Lat. 

tPage  iSS.    A  Tttidtrfooimlh  Ptaty. 


Hoiv  Peary  Obtained  Hit  Honors  887 

the  RooMveU  at  North  St«t  Bay  enroute  home.  Whitnty  says 
that  on  his  return  to  civilization  he  obtained  his  first  information 
that  Peaiy  cUimed  to  have  gone  to  Uie  Pole.  He  says  that  no 
one  of  Uie  crew  ever  mentioned  Uie  subject  eitiier  at  Etah.  or 
while  he  was  on  the  RooteveU. 

I  *m  quite  famUiar  with  aU  that  Peaiy  has  written  on  this 
subjeci..  and  I  beheve  it  possibly  true  tiiat  he  kept  this  matter 
a  secret  until  nearing  civilization.    Possibly  he  and  Bartiett 
did  not  have  Uieir  full  plans  entirely  worked  out  until  that  time 
But  if  Peaiy  had  actuaUy  been  to  the  Pole,  it  was  a  most 
remarkable  procedure.    It  was  weU  known  that  his  objective 
point  was  the  North  Pole.    He  had  a  ship  built  for  that  purpose 
he  had  spent  a  winter  at  Cape  Sheridan  preparing  for  it.    Men 
were  engaged  to  accompany  him  for  tiiat  purpose,  witijouc 
promise  of  compensation  but  simply  for  glory.    Was  it  not 
strange  that  after  having  succeeded  and  returned  safely,  he 
would  not  teU  it  to  McMillan.  Bonip.  or  GoodseU.  or  any  of  Uie 
otiiers,  or  that  Henson,  or  the  Eskimos  did  not  disclose  it?    It 
would  have  been  nahiral  for  tiiose  Danish  Eskimos  who  shouted 

so  grandly  at  tiie  sight  of  tiie  American  flag  at  tiie  apex  of  tiie 
world,  to  have  shouted  Uien.  What  answer  was  given  to  those 
on  board  when  asked  how  far  north  tiiey  had  been?  Did  they 
^^«iynotiung,orwhatdidUi«ysay?    TWs  sureli- has  a  Strang 

But  to  return  to  tiie  hearing.  At  Uie  second  sitting  Peaiy 
and  his  friends  volunteered  to  submit  what  they  designated  L 
proofs.  These  consisted  of  kx>M  sheets  of  paper  said  to  have 
been  torn  from  a  diaiy  made  on  the  Pokr  Sea.  Some  of  the 
entries  are  said  to  have  been  made  on  the  date  of  the  event,  and 
some  the  day  after,  "none  Uter. "  Some  entries  puiporting  to 
have  been  made  on  one  day  show  that  tiu«e  different  kinds  of 
lead  peicils  were  used  to  make  tiie  entry  for  tiut  day  The 
matter,  condition,  and  appearance  of  the  entries  are  suspidoua. 

I'eaiy  testifies  that  he  wrote  up  his  diaiy  eveiy  day  in  the  iidoo 
immediately  af^er  eating  his  meal  of  pemmican.  which  pe^ 

can  he  said  was  "nothing  but  beef  suet  or  taUow,"  that  he  ate 


!I38 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


it  with  his  hands  and  then  wrote  up  the  diary  with  his  hands  in 
that  greasy  condition;  yet  the  sheets  of  paper  submitted  ap- 
peared new  and  perfectly  clean.  When  finishmg  his  examina* 
tion  of  Peary,  Mr.  Roberts  said  :*  If  members  of  the  committee 
care  to,  I  would  like  to  have  the  book  examined  particularly 
with  reference  to  its  condition  and  state.  It  shows  no  finger 
marks  or  vough  usage,  a  very  cleanly  kept  book. " 

AnofJier  condition  of  those  sheets  was  brought  out  as 
follow?  :t 

"Mr.  Roberts. — 'It  seems  rather  strange  that  he  had  such 
an  assortment  of  pencils  there.  Three  penciU.  Those  entries 
were  all  made  contemporaneous?     Made  the  same  day?' 

"Capt.  Peary.— 'Yes,  Sir.'" 

At  this  juncture  the  chairman,  Mr.  Butler,  evidently 
noticing  the  embarrassing  situation,  volunteered  the  following 
support,  immediately  after  the  above  answer. 

"Mr.  Butler. — *We  have  your  word  for  it,  and  we  have 
these  observations  to  show  that  you  were  at  the  North  Pole. 
That  is  the  plain  way  of  putting  it,  your  word  and  your  proofs. 
To  me  as  a  member  of  this  committee,  I  accept  your  word; 
but  yoiu"  proofs  I  know  nothing  at  all  about."* 
Then  Mr.  Bates  came  to  the  rescue  by  saying  "And  you  have 
Bartlett's  statement  as  far  as  he  went."  This  seemed  to 
smooth  the  ruffled  waters  for  a  time. 

Another  significant  feature  in  this  diary  is,  that  it  is  profuse 
in  matters  of  minor  importance,  all  the  way  along  the  allied 
journey-  north.     But  when  interest  was  centered  by  the  com- 
mittee on  what  Peary  recorded  during  the  80  hours  of  his  alleged 
stay  at  the  Pole,  it  was  found  that  only  blank  sheets  represented 
those    days.     Peary    testified :t     "I    made   no   entry   iu  my 
diary    for    two   days,    for  the  7th  and  8th  of  April."     Mr. 
Roberts    reads   from    Peary's   diary:**  "April   6,    forty-third 
day,    twenty-seventh    march,'    the    record   covers    two  pagM 
and    has   a    marginal   entry  and   additional  writing.     Then 
*Pace  84.  Test. 
tPkge  SC  Test. 
tPkge  43  Test. 
••P»ge  84  Test 


T-«C^r« 


How  Peary  Obtained  His  Hotwrt 


aao 


follows  two  loose  leaves.  Without  careful  reading  I  cannot  say 
whether  or  not  they  are  part  of  that  day's  record.  Then 
foUows  two  blank  pages.  'Wednesday,  April  7.  forty-fourth 
day,  first  return  march.'  No  record  on  that  day.  None  on  the 
next  page.  None  on  next  page.  None  on  next  page.  Then 
comes  'April  8,  forty-fifth  day,  second  return  march*  no  record, " 
What  interpretation  is  to  be  made  of  this?  Here  is  surely 
the  equivalent  of  a  play  of  Hamlet  with  Hamlet  left  out.  It  is 
a  play  of  a  trip  to  the  North  Pole,  a  profuse  record  filled  with 
garrulous  non-essentials  until  it  reaches  the  "goal  of  Centuries. " 
Then  there  is  nothing!  All  silence!  Blank  pages!  The 
safest  pUn  for  Peary  was  to  say  nothing,  f'-  miid  nothing. 
MitcheU  who  foUowed  Peary  on  the  stand  was  not  so  wise.  He 
said  things,  and  made  a  Diagram  and  plotted  a  route  which  is  as 
herem  before  shown,  fully  as  disastrous  to  him  and  the  cause  he 
was  espousing  as  are  Peaiy's  statements.  We  have  now  out- 
Imed  the  important  features  of  the  ?i^timony. 

The  sub-committee  reported  favorably  on  the  bill  to 
honor  Peaiy.  In  due  time  it  was  caUed  up  for  discussion  m  the 
House  of  Representetives  and  was  passed,  84-158.  Several 
members  spoke  in  favor  of  its  passage,  but  only  one  against  it, 
Mr.  Macon,  who  reviewed  the  testimony  with  great  accuracy 
and  succinctness.  His  handling  of  the  scientific  features  was 
so  concise  and  comprehensive  that  it  will  repay  anyone  to  read 
it.*  All  who  spoke  favoring  the  biU,  excepting  Mr.  Hobson. 
appealed  solely  to  the  patriotism  of  the  members.  No  one 
attempted  to  show  that  the  alleged  proofs  themselves  esUblished 
Uie  claims.  Mr.  Roberta  who  so  thoroughly  examined  Mr. 
Peary  and  fiUed  the  record  with  valuable  evidence,  voted  for  the 
bill.  The  newspapers  in  his  state  criticised  him  severely  for  the 
deUiy  he  was  causing  by  his  persistent  examination.  In  his 
speech  he  criticised  and  excoriated  the  members  of  the  National 
Geographic  Society  for  their  decision,  after  such  a  flinuy  super- 
ficial investigation  as  was  shown  to  have  been  made  by  tiiem. 
But,  believing  the  Diagram  and  plotting  produced  by  Tittinann 
*Appendix  S. 


i 


'I  J, 
[  A 


If  ' 

■M  ,■ 


240 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


and  Mitchell  to  be  genuine  and  conclusive,  he  voted  for  the  bill. 

Mr.  Hobson  made  an  abortive  attempt  at  scientific  dis- 
cussion, which  is  worthy  of  notice  for  the  shameless  audacity 
it  displays,  if  for  nothing  else.  Early  in  his  speech,  he  vouched 
for  his  own  wisdom  by  saying  "now  as  to  an  .  i-MQcial  horieon 
and  the  low  altitudes  the  gentleman  from  Arkansas  complained 
of — I  have  used  an  artificial  horizon!  I  may  add  that  I  have 
helped  to  navigate  a  squadron  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean! 
It  would  take  time  to  make  a  full  explanation.  But  I  will  tell 
you  gentlemen  of  the  house,  that  you  can  no  more  fake  such 
records  as  Peary  made  than  you  could  fly!  He  made  three 
complete  sets  of  observations  in  the  proximity  of  the  Pole,  and 
they  could  not  possibly  be  faked.  '* 

Hobson  continued:— "When  his  (Peary's)  chronometer 
said  it  was  noon,  he  knew  the  sun  was  in  the  south,  and  he 
headed  the  opposite  direction. "  This  statement  is  substantial- 
ly a  repetition  of  the  testimony  of  Gannett,  and  is  most  as- 
tounding coming  as  it  does  from  an  ex-naval  oflScer  and  a 
geographer.  It  is  more  misleadmg  and  deceptive  than  direct 
falsehood  as  it  presumes  to  be  scientific.  Scientists  say  that 
without  known  positions  of  longitude  one  cannot  plot  a  route 
over  moving  ice.  But  Hobson's  and  Gannett's  idea  of  naviga- 
tion is  that  one  needs  neither  latitude  nor  longitude,  all  he  needs 
is  a  watch  and  the  sun.  Is  this  the  whole  truth?  Hobson 
says:— "His  chronometer  was  set  for  noon  time  of  that  meridian 
(the  70th)  each  day.  When  his  chronometer  said  it  was  noon, 
he  knew  the  sun  was  south."  This  could  only  be  true  to  the 
extent  that  Peary  knew  his  meridian,  his  longitude.  But  he 
took  no  observations  for  longitude  or  for  variation  of  his  com- 
pass. He  did  not  even  pretend  to  know  his  longitude  on  a 
single  day  on  the  trip  north.  He  assumed  he  was  on  the  70th 
meridian. 

A  simple  illustration  will  explain  the  absurdity  of  Hobson's 
position.  Suppose  at  Cape  Columbia  on  the  70th  meridian  at 
noon,  Peary  set  his  watch  at  12  o'clock  when  the  smi  was  on  that 
meridian  and  exactly  south.    Suppose  he  then  traveled  directly 


How  Peary  Obtained  His  Honors 


«41 


west  for  24  hours,  or  until  his  watch  again  showed  noon,  would 
he  still  be  on  the  70th  meridian,  and  would  the  sun  be  south 
because  his  watch  said  noon?    He  would  not,  of  course,  be 
expected  to  go  directly  west  or  east,  and  he  could  not  with 
certainty,  go  directly  north.    But  suppose  when  he  marched 
northward  zigzagging  m  every  direction,  now  turning  to  the 
east  or  to  the  west  to  escape  an  open  lead,  or  to  cross  a  pressure 
ridge,  he  unintentionally  got  to  the  east  or  west  of  the  meridian 
to  which  his  time  was  set  (70th).    The  sun  would  not  be  in  the 
south  because  his  time  piece  said  it  was  noon.     It  would  be 
noon  if  he  was  on  the  meridian  to  which  his  time  was  set, 
but  nowhere  else.    It  would  not  be  noon  where  he  was,  i.  e. 
it  would  not  be  local  noon,  neither  would  the  sun  be  in  the 
south.    If  he  should  then  continue  his  navigation  on  the  Hob- 
son  theory  and  "headed  in  the  opposite  direction"  he  would 
never  agam  know  where  he  was  on  the  joum^.    It  is  prepos- 
terous to  say  that  knowing  only  one  factor,  viz.,  the  time  by 
his  watch,  set  to  the  70th  meridian  and  ignoring  all  other 
factors,  he  would  know  the  sun  was  south.    If  he  did  not  know 
the  local  time,  he  would  not  know  what  meridian  he  was  on, 
and  if  he  was  off  the  70th  meridian  the  sun  would  not  be  south, 
when  his  watch  indicated  noon.    There  is  no  evidence  that 
Peary  took  a  chronometer  with  him  after  he  left  the  ship.     He 
may  have  set  one  or  more  of  his  watches  by  the  ship  chrono- 
meter, or  to  Greenwich  time,  the  others  to  Cape  Columbia  or 
70th  meridian  time.    The  whole  truth  should  be  stated. 

Such  remarks  are  presented  by  an  ex-naval  oflBcer  and  the 
chief  geographer  of  the  United  States  as  testimony  to  guide  a 
government  in  reaching  a  verdict  on  a  questi<Hi  of  world-wide 
importance,  and  to  induce  it  to  grant  a  pension  and  a  title. 
Hobson  says  you  cumot  fake  a  set  or  sets  of  observations.  He 
should  then  explain  why  a  navigate  takes  an  altitude  of  the 
sun.  What  can  his  purpose  be  if  he  does  not  know  beforehand 
that  that  is  all  the  data  he  needs  excepting  poasibly  atmospheric 
conditicms  and  what  his  books  contain,  and  chrcmometers  give, 
to  determine  his  position?    And  how  does  be  hi^>pen  to  Imow 


Mi 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieoovered 


thifl,  if  it  be  not  obtsinable  by  anyone  else?  And  could  he  not 
fake  a  latitude  knowing  the  necemary  altitude,  or  fake  an 
altitude  knowing  the  necessary  latitude?  If  he  cannot  do  this 
he  cannot  compute  his  latitude  when  he  has  an  altitude  of  the 
sun.  Hobson  obviously  covets  the  notoriety  that  recklessness 
gives  him. 

Peary's  testimony  is  that  he  took  only  five  sets  of  observa- 
tions for  latitude,  and  none  for  longitude  on  his  journey  from 
Cape  Columbia  and  return.  He  says  he  took  one  on  April  5 
in  latitude  89"  25',  and  others  April  6  and  7  near  the  Pole.  He 
testifies  that  none  were  taken  to  correct  the  variation  of  the 
compass,  and  that  "the  direction  of  the  comfmss  was  fairly 
constant  there"  and  that  he  would  consider  it  a  waste  of  time 
to  obtain  longitude.  In  this  view  he  is  supported  by  Gannett 
and  Hobson.  It  is  thought  by  other  scientists  that  a  navigator 
starting  north  from  Cape  Columbia  would  soon  be  lost,  if  he 
did  not  know  the  exact  variation  of  his  compass  as  he  moved 
from  point  to  point.  If  this  be  true,  one  who  attempts  this 
trip  without  tliis  knowledge  is  certainly  open  to  the  suspkion 
that  he  can  have  no  intention  of  going  any  definite  distance. 

Nansen,  Shackleton,  Markham  and  other  explorers  con- 
sidered it  necessary  to  check  up  the  variation  of  the  compass  at 
eveiy  possible  opporttmity.  Shackleton  took  three  compasses 
for  better  facilities,  one  a  prismatic  compass,  one  azimuth  to 
record  the  variations,  and  one  to  steer  by.  He  writes*  on  his 
journey  towards  the  South  Pole  "Observations  for  variation 
were  taken  whenever  we  took  a  latitude  observation. "  t"The 
chronometer  watches  taken  were  rated  before  leaving,  and  on 
the  return,  and  the  error  was  only  8  seconds.  All  bearings, 
angles  and  azimuths  were  taken  with  the  theodolite.  Variation 
was  ascertamed  by  means  of  a  compass  attached*to  the  theodo- 
lite, and  the  steering  compasses  were  checked  accordingly.  At 
noon  each  day  the  prismatic  compasses  were  placed  in  the  true 
meridian  and  checked  against  the  theodolite  compass  and  the 

♦Page  421)  Vol.  t.  Heart  of  the  AntarttU. 
tPkCe  83  Vol.  S,  Htart  of  tht  Antarctic. 


Bow  Peary  Obtained  Bit  Botwra 


84S 


steering  compasses. "  When  Shackleton  raached  8«»  1%'  south 
latitude  his  course  thenceforward  was  due  south  on  the  160th 
raendian.  His  compass  variation  at  that  point  was  !(«• 
When  he  reached  87» ««'  Pouth,  his  compass  variation  was  174« 
This  indicates  that  in  a  march  of  onjy  5«  W  practicaUy  due  south 
his  compass  variaUon  changed  12«  C  or  two  degrees  variaUon 
to  every  degree  of  Utitude.  In  some  pUces  on  the  earth's 
surface  the  variation  is  more  radical  than  this. 

Compare  such  a  candid,  inteUigent  statement  as  the  fore- 
gomg  with  the  oft  heralded  "Peaiy  System."  which  is  in  sub- 
stance: 

usel^^  ^^^  "°  observations  for  longitude,  considered  them 

..i  ^^\  "*"  observations  for  compass  variation. 
1  took  no  chart,  and  made  none  of  my  journey 
f «.  t  *r"'  ^^^^  north  and  straight  back  in  the  same 

tlT  tfm7"  '**  '""    "^^^  '*~"»'y  ***  **»*  *"*  '^^ 

Dr.  Ojok  daims  to  have  traveled  north  practicaUy  on  the 
96th  mendian,  which  is  the  north  magnetic  meridian.  His 
compass,  therefore,  was  possibly  constant  at  iw'variation  aU 
the  way.  but  it  was  different  with  Peaiy,  on  tfca  70th  meridian 

Nan8«m  let  his  watches  run  down  on  April  18,  6  days  after 
tiiming  south  and  could  not  accurately  get  his  longitude.  He 
did  the  best  he  could  without  them  by  dead  reckonmg  for  those 
five  days,  yet  when  he  reached  land  he  found  that  he  had  emd 
8  degrees;  yet  Pcaiy  says  he  did  not  test  his  variation  on  the 
journey. 

Diagram  18  opposite  page  «44  shows  thereUtive  positions 
of  Cape  Cohimbia.  and  the  GeograpWc  North  Pole  and  the 
Magneuc  North  Pole. 

There  can  be  no  area  on  the  earth's  surface  more  diflBcult  to 
navigate  by  compass  than  that  near  the  North  Pole,  when  the 
traveler  is  oo  a  geographic  meridian  distant  from  the  magnetic 
mendum;  there  is  no  place  where  it  is  more  important  to  know 
each  day,  the  variation  of  the  compass.  Such  a  route  is  the 
one  from  Cape  Cohunbia  to  the  North  Pole.    Shackleton 


S44 


Wis 


111 


Ha*  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeome,! 


GEOGRAPHIC    POLE 


CAPE  COLUMBIA 


MAGNETIC   POLE 

Diagram  IS 

Scott  and  Amundsen  traveled  under  similar  conditi<His  on  their 
routes  south. 

Cape  Columbia  is  on  the  70th  meridian,  418  miles  south 
from  the  geographic  North  Pole.  The  rnagnetic  (North)  Pole 
is  south  from  the  geographic  Pole  about  1600  miles  on  the  96th 
meridian.  The  magnetic  needle  is  generally  supposed  to 
point  directly  to  the  magnetic  Pole.  But  it  may  truthfully  be 
said  that  it  generally  does  not.  In  some  locations  it  does  not 
point  even  approximately  to  the  magnetic  Pole.  It  is  not  even 
constant,  in  any  one  locality,  from  year  to  year.  In  fact,  it  is 
constantly  changing  'excepting  perhaps  over  the  Poles  them- 
selves). Hence  the  variation  is  only  known  m  localities  where 
it  has  been  ascertaiued  by  navigators.  Some  of  the  curves 
showing  equal  variations  are  like  serpent  tracks  in  the  sand. 
Every  edition  of  the  British  admiralty  chart  has  the  latest  known 
variation  shown  upon  them  in  practically  every  location  where 


//    ',      t'rarii    '''>/<(irt'//    //#.»    ffmiirt 


mmtmtm 


'  .11 


'l» 


rilAM9     Xl  MTAHMAIItAia              1 

/      !' 

1                  » 

,  \ 

•: 

r  < 

'■aiA 

;'\'\ 

M 

• 

\  \ 

\ 


Jl'   11' 


\ 

'      '«!»  <>n  {.:; 

>  t  >     I 

\\ 

M.^     \.,,   :;     ,■. 

\\h 

•  i»-             '■'     ""> 

'•-,-:■,   il 

■  u.  . 

<-ar      in  fjici^,  It 

'  n\, 

r   tJk-   I'oI.'s  thf 

;r:-'-t' 

»^-i   1:-— :!;?ii^s  -.^'N 

K  <  rv 


n   tl. 


.iil-    y*:tin-i  I    i.«»ks   III    liw   »aii.=; 

liHr*  h«s  the  [..    at  know" 


■Oi 


Hov)  Peary  Obtained  Hi*  Honore 


845 


it  haa  been  detennined.  These  admiralty  charts  give  tmly 
conjectural  compass  variations  in  the  noKh  poUr  sea.  They 
can  give  nothing  else.  These  conjectural  variations  at  Cape 
Columbia  have  been  given  in  different  years  as  being  IW  west. 
1«0»  west.  anJ  in  191«  as  7a»  west.  The  publishers  themselves 
can  only  record  what  is  reported  and  the  reports  m«y  be  in- 
accurate. The  chart  for  lOH  gives  the  variation  at  Cape 
Sheridan  as  70*.    Peary  testified  at  Washington  that  it  is  M*. 

Nobody  knows  the  variation  <^  the  compass  very  far  north 
of  Cape  Columbia  and  nobody  can  know  until  it  has  been 
ascertained  by  actual  ol)servation.  Peary  testified  that  he 
made  no  attempt  to  learn  the  variation  of  the  compass  on  his 
last  trip  north,  consequently  he  could  not  have  known  it,  at 
any  time  on  the  journey. 

Using  round  figures,  let  us  amume  (Diagram  IS)  that  the 
distance  between  C^ie  Columbia  and  the  North  (geographic) 
Pole  is  an  even  400  miles;  that  the  distarce  between  the  geo- 
graphic and  the  magnetic  Pole  is  1600  miles,  and  the  distance 
from  Cape  Columbia  directly  west  to  the  06th  meridian  SOO  miles 
and  that  the  variation  of  the  compass  at  Cape  Columbia  is,  say, 
140  degrees.  At  the  (geographic)  North  Pole,  the  variation 
is,  of  course,  supposed  to  be  180  degrees.  Every  direction  is 
south  there. 

A  person  traveling  from  Cape  Columbia,  which  is  on  the 
70th  meridian,  to  the  96th  meridian,  (whether  he  went  directly 
west  to  that  meridian,  or  to  its  northern  extremity  at  the  Pole) 
would  observe  a  compass  variation  changmg  from  140  degrees 
to  180  degrees,  or  40  degrees  for  the  entire  journey.  The 
direction  given  by  the  compass  wouki  not  be  constant  a  single 
hour  or  a  smgle  mile  while  journeying  in  either  direction.  There 
would  be  a  change  of  one  degree  in  eveiy  10  miles  when  traveling 
directly  north  (400  miles)  or  there  wodd  be  a  change  of  one 
degree  in  every  3  miles,  when  traveling  directly  west  to  this 
meridian  (200  miles). 

Suppose  the  first  day's  travel  is  estimated  as  10  miles.     In 
the  zigzag  and  circuitous  route  necessarily  taken,  one  oouU  not 


MICtOCOPY   RESOIUTION   TEST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^1 2.8 

111 

77     13.6 


12.2 
2.0 

1.8 


_J  APPLIED  IM/1GE     Inc 

^Sr  1653  Eosl   Mam   Street 

r.S  Rocheste',   New  York        14609       USA 

^S  (716)  482  -  0300  -  Phone 

^S  (716)   288  -  5989 -Fax 


246 


Htu  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


\i 


guess  exactly  at  the  end  of  the  march  in  just  what  direction,  or  at 
what  distance  one  camp  was  from  the  other.  If  the  camp  at 
night  were  directly  north  of  the  morning  camp,  and  the  distance 
just  10  miles,  the  variation  would,  of  course,  be  one  degree 
changing  gradually  all  the  way.  But  this  would  be  true  only 
when  both  factors  were  fulfilled  correctly,  viz.,  the  distance  and 
direction  traveled.  How  could  both  of  these  be  known  under 
the  circumstances?  If  the  compass  were  the  only  guide,  and 
if  there  were  a  dense  fog  or  a  snow  storm  or  diifting  ice  during 
the  day,  it  would  be  difiScult  to  guess  accurately  either  as  to 
distance  or  direction  traveled.  Could  one  travel  by  a  compass 
over  such  a  route  and  under  such  circimostanoes,  and  know  at 
night  exactly  the  direction  and  distance  made?  Navigators  in 
a  fog  with  a  constant  compass  to  steer  by,  are  anxious  men  until 
their  location  is  finalJly  determined  by  other  well  known  means. 
A  navigator  on  the  ocean,  out  of  sight  of  land,  in  broad  day- 
light with  variable  winds,  beating  to  windward  with  a  sailing 
ship,  with  a  known  and  constant  variation,  and  steering  as 
straight  as  he  can  on  each  tack,  often  finds  by  subsequent 
observations  of  the  sun,  that  his  location  b  entirely  different 
from  that  which  he  had  supposed. 

Suppose  now  that  such  a  navigator  could  not  have  steered 
his  ship  straight  through  the  uneven  seas,  but  had  to  go  around 
each  billow,  traveling  in  this  manner  all  day  long,  with  a  com- 
pass varying  every  minute,  and  varying  twice  as  much  in 
making  northing,  as  it  did  in  making  westing.  Could  he  guess 
exactly  where  he  was  after  a  day's  sail,  even  in  daylight,  and 
with  a  log?  If  he  coukl  not,  at  the  end  of  the  day,  know  his 
exact  location,  is  he  not  perplexed  how  to  shape  his  course  for 
the  next  day?  If  there  is  doubt  in  such  an  instance,  what  would 
be  the  case  with  a  caravan  of  unruly  dog  teams  on  polar  ice, 
perhaps  on  moving  ice? 

Let  us  now  suppose  that  at  the  end  oi  the  first  estimated 
ten  miles  joiimey  (by  this  hypothetical  navigator)  over  the  ice, 
an  error  had  beej  made  in  directitm  and  in  the  distance  traveled? 
If  the  error  had  been  6  miles  west  from  north,  the  variatioii  of 


How  Peary  Obtained  His  Honors 


M7 


the  compass  would  then  be  142  degrees.  If  5  mUes  east,  it 
would  be  140  degrees  variation,  just  as  it  was  when  he  left  in 
the  morning  with  no  change.  If  he  did  not  know  his  exact 
location,  he  could  not  know  his  variation.  Then  how  wouU  he 
shape  his  course  by  compass  the  next  day  for  the  North  Pole? 
If  he  was  in  error  a  new  ratio  of  change  in  the  variation  thence 
forward  under  those  cirr'  tistances  would  add  another  calcula- 
tion to  consider  daily.  It  does  not  take  a  navigator  or  a  scien- 
tist to  see  plamly  what  a  mix-up  such  a  traveler  would  be  in, 
at  the  end  of  the  first  day.  He  would  be  absolutely  unable  to 
take  his  proper  course  on  the  second  day  out,  to  say  nothing  of 
subsequent  days. 

There  is  another  difficulty  that  may  be  encountered  in 
attemptmg  to  travel  by  a  compass  without  ccmstantly  knowing 
its  variation.  A  compass  is  a£Fected  by  metals  if  th^r  are  in 
close  proximity.  A  careless  stowage  of  metal  things  on  a 
sledge— a  thoughtless  phicing  of  a  pickaxe  might  cause  the  com- 
pass to  be  untrue.  Amundsen  forgot  nothing.  He  had  a  com- 
pass on  every  sledge  as  checks  on  the  steering  compass  which 
was  on  the  front  sledge.  One  day  he  was  perplexed,  he  could 
not  at  once  understand  the  cause  of  the  aberations  of  one  of  the 
compasses.  A  few  experiments  k)cated  the  cause.  The  primus 
stove  affected  it.  ilmundsen  foresaw  with  unerring  vision  the 
possible  troubles  that  might  arise  if  he  should  rely  upon  one 
compass  only,  even  though  he  couW  daily  know  what  its  true 
variation  should  be. 

Peary,  Gannett  and  Hobson  nonchalantly  pooh-pooh  the 
idea  of  any  necessity  for  longitude.  But  neither  of  them,  we 
venture  to  say  would  be  willing  to  go  upon  record  and  exphiin 
just  how  one  could  find  the  North  Pole  by  their  methods.  At 
all  events  it  would  be  interesting  and  instructive  to  know  how  it 
could  be  done.* 

.Ki  7*»"*^i^*°!?°*  the  poMibilitie.  that  s  reckleasadventUKr  might  be 
able  to  travel  fat>in  Cape  Columbia  to  the  Pble  without  knowing  hii  kin^tude 
He  mi^t  gamble  on  leeults  a-'d  win.  B«t.  it  would  hardhr  beadled^ivifla. 
tion.  It  would  iH)t  be  a  safe  way,  or  the  bert  way.  It  would  multiply  infini^ 
the  pcfplexttiea  of  a  haaaidow  undertaking.  »n'v™™"cv 


«46 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


It  does  not  require  much  knowledge  of  astronomy  to  know 
that  such  pretended  evidence  is  absolutely  valueless.  Only 
common  sense  is  needed.  This  audacious  attempt  to  show  that 
these  observations  could  not  be  faked,  should  be  fully  examined. 
Peary's,  Tittmann's,  and  Gannett's  testimony  in  respect  to 
this  point  is  evasive.  They  aU  pretend  that  there  is  doubt, 
regardmg  this  feature,  as  if  they  did  not  know  that  there  is  no 
doubt  and  can  be  no  doubt.  Peary  even  took  the  risk  to  say 
"That  observations  have  never  yet  been  made  that  were  not 
made  at  the  place."  U  this  were  true,  it  endorses  Cook's 
chiims  of  the  year  previous,  and  makes  him  the  discoverer. 
But  no  claim  can  be  based  upon  such  a  loose  statement. 

A  scientist  either  can,  or  cannot,  detect  a  faked  observation. 
If  he  can  detect  the  difference  between  a  fake  observation,  and 
one  that  is  genume,  he  must  necessarily  know  what  constitutes 
a  genume  one,  and  must  be  able  to  show  why  he  knows  it  is 
genuine,  and  be  able  to  explam  the  difference.    If  he  can  do 
that,  and  do  it  successfuUy,  and  do  it  in  his  office,  it  shows  upon 
Its  face  that  he  need  not  be  at  the  Pole.    It  does  not  require  an 
astronomer  or  a  scientist  to  know  this  self-evident  truth.    If  a 
scientist  should  decide  that  an  observation  submitted  to  hun 
was  actuaUy  a  fake,  he  could  only  prove  that  tiie  fake  was  not  suc- 
cessfuUy executed,  otiierwise  he  would  not  have  known  it  to  be 
a  fake.    In  either  event  he  could  not  prove  where  the  observa- 
tion was  made.    Peaij  certainly  could  have  gone  to  tiiis  same 
scientist  and  had  a  fake  properly  executed,  which  is  sufficient 
proof  that  an  observation  can  be  faked. 

Suppose  on  the  other  hand  that  it  is  impossible  for  an 
astronomer  or  scientist  to  detect  a  fake  observation.  Then 
what  use  in  submitting  it  to  him?  What  evidence  could  he 
give  tiiat  anyone  else  could  not?  It.  therefore,  can  be  seen  by 
anyone  of  ordinary  discernment,  that  tiie  opinion  of  a  scientist 
IS  of  no  special  value  as  evidence  in  a  matter  of  this  character. 
He  can  tell  nothing,  except  to  expose  the  humbug,  if  he  detects 
It.  If  an  astronomer  cannot  teU  whether  or  not  an  observation 
was  actually  taken  at  that  place,  where  it  purports  to  have  been 


How  Peary  Obianac   dis  Honor » 


249 


taken,  of  what  earthly  use  is  it  for  a  "Computer"  to  check  up 
the  computations?  It  might  have  been  wrongly  computed 
even  from  a  genuine  observation.  If  found  to  be  correct,  the 
computations  would  not  give  the  slightest  indication  of  where 
the  observation  was  taken.  To  present  such  pretended  prooit: 
shows  that  the  members  of  the  Geographic  Society  were  not 
impartial  judges;  but  partisan  judges;  advocates  and  defenders  of 
Peary;  witnesses  for  Peary;  exposing  themselves. 

It  would  seem  unnecessary  and  useless,  but  (to  silence  any 
further  contention  on  this  subject)  an  illustration  is  submitted 
herewith,  which  was  prepared  in  a  noted  University,  which 
shows  conclusively  that  Peaiy's  alleged  "proofs"  can  be  faked. 

The  author  of  the  letter  herewith,  in  response  to  my  inquiry 
is  the  Professor  of  Astronomy  and  Physics  in  the  Creighton 
University,  Omaha,  Neb.  The  following  correspondence  with 
him  is  interesting  in  this  connection. 

"Omaha,  Nebr.,  Feb.  IS,  1911." 
"  My  dear  Professor : — 

"I  wish  to  submit  to  you,  two  astronomical  problems  for 
solution.  If  inconvenient  for  you  to  attend  to  this,  perhaps 
you  may  have  it  done  by  one  of  your  bMt  students,  for  whose 
ability  you  can  vouch. 

"  1st  problem. — Suppose  on  May  1,  1910,  at  noon,  on  a 
perfectly  clear  day,  I  was  approximately  on  longitude  30 
degrees  west  of  Greenwich,  and  on  North  latitude  89°  58'.  At 
that  moment,  I  took  an  observation  of  the  sun  to  obtain  its 
altitude,  and  from  the  altitude  so  obtained  I  ascertained  the 
latitude  to  be  as  above  stated.  What  was  that  altitude  of  the 
Sun? 

"2nd  problem. — In  order  to  prove  and  verify  your  work,  I 
wish  you  to  use  the  altitude  which  you  find  correct,  and  compute 
therefrom  t'le  altitude.  Kindly  send  me  all  the  figures  of  your 
computations. 

"Thanking  you  in  advance,  I  am 
Most  respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)  Thomas  F.  Hall." 

The  answer  is  as  follows: 

"The  problems,  whose  solution  you  desire,  are  very 
simple. 


If 


250 


Bos  the  North  PoU  Been  Discovered 


"FIBST:    On  May  V  1910  noon,  in  longitude  SO'  West 
IS.'l^r'*'  "'•^  «'°  •^**'  ^-^^^  1-^titude.  wK  the  ^l 


'it 


DiAGBAM    14 

ll}^-  *^*  annexed  figures,  H  is  the  sun's  altitude    Z  it» 
^mtt.  distance.  D  its  declination,  and    L  th^  laSJudJof  i^J 

wich"'^fc^^i  ^^^^  ^  local  noon,  which  is  2  p.m.  at  Green 

Z  89-  58'  0"-14-  55'  0"-75°  7' T     And  aJ  H  90o    7h' 

The  mean  refraction  at  that  altitude  is  S'  82".    This  mSS 

^^eS"  1?  h''"^'^  T""^^'  ^^  ^«  baK,meter"  d  ^1^ 
tT"?*'^' !f '*^^.  *^  *^*»*  8»^en-  -^s  refraction  raises  a  stS^ 
the  observed  altitude  was  14»  57'  O     3'  82"  150  n' li'/     ff  * 

J.  the  altitude  of  the  sun's  centre'  'LTts'slmidi^'eterl^ 
26"  1h^  ♦tT'^^  f.^**^^*  '°'  *^«  "PP«r  Mmb  0  was  iJm" 
Sd'  ^  ind.^Vr"'  -r^  0.  14.°  44'  88".  If  the  sextant  usS 
Had  an  mdex  error,  its  correction  must  also  be  subtract. 

••SECOND:  () 

Let  the  observed  altitude  of  OR 

the  sun.  corrected  for  in- 
dex be 
Sun's  semidiameter 
Mean  refraction 

True  altitude  -H     - 


15"  16' 26" 

-  16    54 

-  8    82 

14  57      0 


14° 

+ 


44'   38" 

15     54 

8     82 


14     57       0 


How  Peary  Obtained  Hia  Homra 


Ml 


75     8 
14  66 


0 
0 


89«  58'     0' 


Z-90-H 
Sun's  D 
Then  the  latitude      ■■ 

L-Z+D 
I  trust  this  is  what  you  want. 

Yours  sincerely, 
William  F.  Riooe." 
It  will  be  noticed  that  this  illustrative  problem  does  not 
in  any  way  trespass  upon  the  locality  in  which  Peaiy  may  claim 
pre-emption,  or  use  his  figures.    It  applies  to  a  differeni  part 
of  the  world,  to  a  different  ktitude  and  longitude,  a  different 
year  and  a  different  month;  and  consequently  requires  entiifsly 
different  figures.    It  does  not  prove  and  cannot  prove,  that  I 
was  on  that  date  within  two  miles  of  the  North  Pole.    Yet  tl: 
computetion  shows  that  I  was  one  mile  nearer  the  Pole  than 
Peaiy  ckims  to  have  been  at  Camp  Jessup,  and  that  I  present 
as  vahd  proof  that  I  was  there.    I  present  better  proof,  because 
I  go  farther.    I  present  all  the  compuuitions  to  the  world  for 
examination  whic.  Peaiy  and  the  National  Geographic  Society 
suppress.    They  probably  dare  not  present  them.    If  Peaiy 
had  presented  any  computations  for  longitude,  it  could  be  shown 
that  they  also  can  be  faked  just  as  well  as   jr  latitude. 

Now,  suppose  when  Bartiett  and  jfeary  were  resting  on 
Apnl  1.  at  the  aUeged  Camp  Bartiett  at  87'  47',  that  Peaiy  had 
propounded  to  Bartiett  (a  skiUed  navigator  of  great  experience) 
the  foUowmg  question,  which  is  of  tiie  same  nature  as  tiiat 
heiem  presented.  "Can  you  teU  what  an  observation  shouW 
be  if  made  m  a  certain  Utitude  on  a  certain  date  at  noon,  the 
longitude  approximately  known?"  And  Bartiett  might  have 
answered  "Certainly."  Then  suppose  Peaiy  had  said,  "Let 
us  go  back  to  the  RooteveU,  instead  of  to  the  Pole.  I  have  a 
scheme.  I  have  a  plan."  And  having  returned,  he  un/olds 
nis  scheme  as  follows: 

"Assume  tiiat  I  am  at  89«  57'  North  latitude,  say  April  6 

and  7th,  1909  at  noon,  on  longitude  70°  west.     Now  ascertain 

for  me  tiie  correct  altitude  of  the  sun  at  tiiat  moment,  and  tiien 

ake  tiiat  altitude  as  you  always  do  after  an  observation,  and 


252 


Baa  the  North  Pale  Been  DUcovfred 


compute  the  latitude  and  see  if  it  comes  out  89"  57'  the  s&me  as 
if  the  altitude  had  actually  been  taken."  Could  Peary  not 
ha^c  done  that,  as  the  Professor  in  the  University  did,  if  he  was 
as  skilled?  Or  could  not  any  one,  if  equally  skilled?  Peary 
might  not  have  wished  to  take  the  risk  of  submitting,  and 
confiding  such  a  delicate  proposition  to  an  astronomer  of  repute 
but  might  have  preferred  to  take  his  chances  with  his  friend 
Bartlett  and  make  a  bungle  of  it.  But  there  can  be  no  dispute 
that  it  could  have  been  done. 

Father  Rigge  of  the  Creighton  University  of  Omaha, 
Nebr.,  writes  the  author  as  follows: 

"FIRST:  I  maintain,  and  am  sure  every  astronomer  and 
navigator  and  explorer  will  agree  with  me,  that  sextant  ob- 
servations alone  do  not  furnish  positive  proof  of  one's  having 
been  at  a  certain  place  at  a  certain  time,  because  such  data  as 
these  observations  might  give,  may  easily  be  computed  from  the 
assumed  position  and  time.  They  are  like  forming  an  algebraic 
equation  which  shall  have  certain  roots. 

"SECONDLY:  Whether  Peary  possesses,  and  has  sub- 
mitted incontestable  proofs  of  having  been  very  near  the  Pole, 
I  do  not  know.  But  his  published  accoimts  in  Hampton's 
magazine  and  in  his  own  book,  do  not  contain  any  convincing 
proof  at  all.  They  ure  merely  popular  descriptions  of  his 
journey,  and  when  ore  attempts  to  plot  his  whereabouts  when 
nearest  the  Pole,  h         '-    onfusing  and  conflicting  statements. 

"THIRDLY-  a  of  Peary's  proving  that  he  had 

been  at,  or  near  t^  i>'c,  would  consist  in  the  cumulative 
evidence  furnished  by  aiany  and  various  obseriations  beside 
those  of  his  sextant,  such  as  his  dead  reckoning  data,  the 
readings  of  his  chronometers,  of  his  barometer  and  thermometer, 
and  of  his  magnetic  declination  and  inclination  needles,  and  the 
like,  as  I  explained  in  the  Omaha  World  Herald  of  September 
5  and  8,  1909,  both  of  which  articles  were  republished  in  many 
other  papers.  I  feel  convinced  that  no  person  could  possibly 
design  such  a  journey,  and  such  a  connected  series  of  observa- 
tions, and  not  introduce  into  them  numerous  minor  accidental 
errors,  such  as  always  happen  to  the  best  observers.  The  errore 
to  be  found  in  the  data  of  an  actual  and  true  journey  would  be 
purely  accidental,  whereas  those  in  a  forged  narrative  cotild  not 


How  Peary  Obtained  Hit  Honora 


MS 


avoid  >^eing  systematic  and  inconsistent,  and  would  betray 
themselves  to  one  or  other  searching  investigator. 

"  Yours    sincerely, 

(Signed)  "William  F.  Rioge." 
Another   As*»T>nomer  of    another   University  solves    the 
same  problem  in  another  way. 

"Omaha,  Nebr.,  Feb.  16,  1911. 

"To  the  Professor  of  Astronomy  and  Meterology, 

University  of  Nebraska,  Lincoln,  Nebr. 

"My  dear  Professor: — 

"I  take  the  liberty  to  propound  to  you  a  problem  which  I 
would  be  glad  to  have  solved,  if  you  will  kindly  favor  me. 

"FIRST:  Suppose  I  was  on  May  1,  1910  at  local  noon  at 
North  latitude  89°  58'  approximate  longitude  SO'  west  of  Green- 
wich, and  took  an  observation  of  the  sun,  having  in  my  posses- 
sion a  chronometer  ^ith  Greenwich  time  and  local  time  piece 
set  to  local  time  SO'  west  longitude.  What  altitude  of  the  sun 
should  have  been  shown  on  my  sextant  by  that  observation? 

"SECOND:  With  that  altitude,  kindly  compute  th.^ 
latitude,  showing  it  to  be  89'  58',  and  longitude  SO'  west  with 
all  computations  indicating  your  method. 

"Thanking  you  most  sincerely  in  advance,  and  hoping 
you  may  kindly  favor  me,  I  am. 

Most  respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)  Thomas  F.  Hall." 

The  reply  is: 

"The  following  would  be  the  computation  in  the  case 
cited: 

Measured  altitude  of  the  sun  at  local  noon  15'    1'   0.5" 

Refraction  for,  say.  Temp.  -20'  Fahr.  Pressure  29.5"      4    0.7 


True  altitude  14    56  59.8 

Sun's  declination  or  distance  north  of  equator 

Greenwich  apparent  noon  14'  53' 28.3" 
Hourly  increase     45 .  74" 
Hours  to  30th 

Meridian  2 


Total  increase      l'Sl.5 


I'Sl.S' 


£54 


Has  iht  North  Pole  Bten  Ditcovertd 


Declination    at 
local  noon 


14    54  59.8 

Distance  from  the  pole 
Latitude 


14     54  50.8 

2    0.0 
80    58    0.0 


"To  find  the  longitude  one  must  have  with  him  a  chrono- 
meter canying  Greenwich  time;  he  must  al»»  determine  his 
local  time  by  noting  when  the  sun  reached  its  maximum  altitude; 
the  difference  would  be  his  longitude. 

Time  of  sun's  maximum  altitude,  or  apparent  local 

noon  llh  57m  5s 

Sun  fast  May  1st  2    55 


Time  of  local  mean  noon  12      0      0 

Reading  of  the  Greenwich  chronometer  at  same 

instant  2      0      0 


Difference  of  time  (  -longitude) 


or, 


2 
80' 


0      0 
West. 


"Practically  his  chronometer  woidd  not  probably  read 
just  what  it  ought  when  the  sim  indicated  local  noon,  but  he 
would  by  the  sun  determine  its  error;  neither  would  his  Green- 
wich chronometer  probably  indicate  true  Greenwich  time;  but 
he  is  supposed  to  know  about  the  rate  at  which  it  is  gaining 
or  losinp  and  so  he  knows  its  probable  error;  knowing  the  errors 
of  both  timepieces,  he  can  apply  the  necessary  corrections  and 
so  get  the  true  difference  of  time, — two  hours. 

"I  do  not  know  whether  this  brief  showing  will  make  clear 
the  process;  if  not  I  shall  be  glad  to  state  more  fully  the  points 
that  need  elucidation. 

Very  truly  yours. " 

G.  D.   SWEZET. 


If  anything  were  lacking,  to  convince  a  most  biased 
partisan;  to  make  complete  the  exposiu«  of  every  phase  of  the 
deception  concerning  Peary's  alleged  discovery  of  the  Pole, 
it  is  fortunately  fuid  pro\ndentiany  .supplied,  (as  \h  usually  the 
case)  by  the  daring  attempt  of  the  members  of  the  Committee 
of  the  National  Geographic  Society  to  bolster  up  their  false 


How  Peary  Obtaintd  Hia  Honort 


verdict,  by  an  endeavor  to  cover  up  these  plain  tracks  that 
Peary  has  made.  The  members  ci  that  organiiatioa,  who 
rendereii  the  decision  on  which  the  Gc  emmoit  afterwards 
acted*  are  prominent  Government  oflScials.  What  shall  be 
said  of  their  clearly  friendly,  partisan,  wiscientific  and  false 
decision;  whut  can  be  said  when  it  is  obviou~  "  &t  the  evidence 
which  they  produced  and  offered  (to  induce  lovemment  of 
which  they  are  a  part)  to  grant  a  pension  and  confer  hi^  honors, 
is  not  genuine  or  truthful  evidence  and  that  they  have  practiced 
fraud  to  accomplish  their  purpose?  Is  there  any  poialty  too 
great  for  men  in  their  po;:ition  for  acts  of  that  character? 

The  two  most  impor  jmt  features,  however  of  the  investiga* 
tion  were:  the  submission  by  Peaiy  of  the  leaves  showing  the 
observati(ms  he  said  he  took  during  the  SO  hours  he  claims  to 
have  been  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Pole;  and  the  testimony,  diagram 
and  plotting  by  Mr.  Tittmann  and  Mr.  Gannett,  two  of  the 
thre.  members  of  the  Geographic  Society  who  passed  oa  Peary's 
claims.    It  does  not  require  any  special  scientific  ot  astnmomical 
knowledge  to  understand  perfectly  the  problems  involved,  and 
to  detect  clearly  the  evident  decepticm  practiced.    Anyone  of 
ordinaty  intelligence  can  do  it,  if  he  wishes.    The  so-called 
proofs  which  were  submitted  to  the  Sub-committee  on  Naval 
Affairs  for  examination,  consisted  of  loose  sheets  of  paper, 
alleged  to  have  been  torn  from  a  book  containing  what  purports 
to  be  a  record  of  observations  taken   n  the  vicinity  of  the  Pole 
on  the  6th  and  7th  of  April    1909,  together  wiUi  a  diagrani 
prepared  by  Mr.  Tittmann  '  ith  a  pl<    ling  o<   <  route  said  'u> 
have  been  deduced  frum  th(  iigures  on  these        ^ts.     These  two 
items,  (the  last,  if  genuine,  based  upon  the      st)  comprise  all 
the  "proofs"  that  Peary,  is  the  "discoverer    ^  the  N"    h  Pole. 
These  scraps  of  paper  which  purport  to  be  tf       >*!''  ufwi.  which 
the  diagram  and  plot  were  drawn,  are  n  f»i  aore  value 

as  proofs,  than  would  be  so  many  blank  wra^  mpers.    But 

the  fact  that  they  are  really  offered  by  Peary         the  National 
Gec^raphic  Society  is  significant  and  should  nu     ^  overiooked. 
The  Tichbome  claimant  who  hoodwinke      >iie  English 


!■ 


T 


«56 


Bat  th$  North  PoU  Been  Diteoeered 


I 


lai 


public  for  yean,  and  who  wai  at  last  bctjceratod  for  hu  crime, 
had  aoroe  plausible  excuaet  iot  hii  perfidy;  and  the  neoeitity 
for  ferreting  out   these  excuses  was  justification  for  the  lor^' 
delay  permitted  by  the  English  Government.    It  will  be  seen 
m  the  case  now  under  consideration,  however,  that  there  is  no 
excuse,  no  purported  fact  submitted  that  does  not  beir  upon  its 
face  the  stamp  of  its  own  refuUtion  and  its  own  evidence  of 
deception.    The  audacity  of  presuming  to  present  such  frivolous 
matter  as  proof,  in  a  matter  of  such  worid-wide  interest,  should 
at  once  condemn  its  sponsors.    An  iudrpendent  astronomer  of 
repute  and  integrity  was  not  selected  t  make  a  pbtting,  for  the 
obvious  reason  that  he  would  have  exposed  the  humbug  in- 
stantly.   A   "Computer"   (who  appears  by  the  evidence  to 
be  in  fact  a  counterfeiter),  in  the  employ  of  Tittmann*  was 
selected  mstead.    A  plumber  would  have  bcfm  equally  as  ap- 
propriate, but  perhaps  not  as  subservient.    Up<m  this  flim^, 
false  and  unscientific  evidence  and  upon  this  alone  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  advised  the  President  to  honor  Peary  as  the  dis- 
coverer.   The  President  in  turn  asked  G>ngress  to  act,  and  on 
this  testimony,  Congress  passed  and  the  President  signed  the 
f<^owing  bill: 

Sec.  1.  "That  the  President  of  the  United  Stoles  be,  and 
w  hereby,  authorized,  to  place  Civil  Engineer,  Robert  E. 
^?*.7'  United  Stotes  Navy,  on  the  retired  list  of  the  corps-  of 
Civil  Engineers  with  the  rank  of  Rear  Admiral,  to  date  from 

•Note:— My  attenUon  has  been  called  to  » letter  from  Mr.  O.  H.  Tittnuuui 
under  date  of  March  4.  1914,  which  appears  in  the  Congnasional  reooid  of 
February  10.  1914  (on  page  8875).    Th^  iMTpwagmphoirSlettoScb: 

k  ii"^^?™P"  n^'S"  '*'..***f'y'*  "^'^  ^'^  °»»*>  by  Messrs.  Hug},  Mit- 
^U  and  Charles  R.  DuvaU  who  were  employed  for  the  purpose  byMr  .arv 
fhese  computetions  were,  therefore,  not  made  officially  by  the  Coast  and 
Geodetw  Survey,  although  this  office  has  always  vouched  for  the  accuimcy  of 
the  work  done  by  these  two  men. "  ' 

The  fact  that  Peary  himself  engaged  this  plotting  to  be  made  was  not 
dwclosed  m  the  testimony.  This  knowled^  oives  the  transaction  a  new  phase 
V  J"*  u»  ^-71.™.,  •  (f^***!""  P«»>t>on  of  mdirectly  discrediting  his  own  6ook. 
No  doubt  Mitebell  m  self-protecUon  will  eventually  disclose  to  what  extent  he 
u  himself  responsible. 

One  thmg  is  now  certain  and  it  is  serious.  The  U.  S.  Coast  and  Geodetic 
Survey  by  this  letter  officiaUy  vouches  for  a  counterfeit.  ^eodeUc 


r 


How  Peary  Obtatntia  Uia  tionort 


m 


April  fl,  1000.  with  the  highest  retired  pay*  of  that  grade  under 
existing  law." 

Sec.  2.  "That  the  thanks  of  Congress  be,  and  the  same 
are  hereby  tendered  to  Robert  E.  Peaiy,  United  States  Navy, 
for  his  Arctic  explorati<Mis,t  (resulting  in  reaching  the  Sorth 
Pole.") 

This  is  an  Mmouncement  to  all  mankind,  who  are  denied  an 
opportunity  to  examine,  or  even  see  the  evidence  <hi  which  it  is 
based.  It  necessarily  carries  with  it  the  implication,  not  only 
that  the  evidence  justified  this  verdict,  but  also  that  it  was 
carefully  and  the  '•^*v  examined,  considered  and  discussed  so 
that  the  decisi'  m  every  way  ri^^teous  and  scientific. 

In  view  of  the  f w  .nearthed  by  this  disclosure,  it  is  the  duty 
of  every  patriotic  American  to  demand  a  non-pvxtisan,  scientific 
investigation  by  Congress  so  that  the  truth  regarding  the  polar 
controversy  iaay  be  established  without  possibility  of  con- 
tention. 

*8M  to  be  16.000. 

tThe  word  "difcoverer"  or  "6ueovtry"  doM  not  sppwr  in  the  bill,  but 
it  declares  Uul  he  rmitAtd  the  North  Pole. 


t 

t 

I 


I   'f 


li 


CHAPTER  VIII 

DID  PEARY  REACH  87»  6'  IN  1906? 

Has  the  Northern  Record  or  Cagni  or  or  Nansen  Been 

Beaten? 

Peary's  alleged  discoveries  of  "Peary  Channel,"  "Green- 
land Sea,"  "Jessup  Land,"  "Cape  Thomas  Hubbard,"  "The 
Insularity  of  Greenland"  and  "Crocker  Land"  have  all  been 
proven  untrue  by  other  explorers.  The  Government  has 
repudiated  them;  maps  and  charts  containing  them  have  been 
ordered  changed,  or  withdrawn  from  circulation,  until  they 
can  be  made  to  correspond  with  later  known  truths.*  The 
recent  incidental  discovery  of  these  truths  makes  it  highly 
proper  to  extend  the  scope  of  my  inquiries. 

The  lines  of  alleged  travels  on  the  polar  sea  in  1909  on  the 
70th  Meridian  north  from  latitude  85°  23'  ("Borup's  Last 
Camp")  to  the  North  Pole,  should  be  erased.  The  purpose  of 
this  chapter  is  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  Imes  of  the  1906 
voyage  extending  northeast  from  a  point  in  84"  38'  north  lati- 
tude, longitude  61"  40'  west,  to  87"  6'  north  latitude,  longitude 
50W,  thence  south  on  the  50th  meridian  to  Cape  Newmeyer, 
as  shown  on  Map  No.  2  and  also  on  diagrammatic  chart  No. 
17  herewith  should  also  be  erased,  that  navigators  may  know 
they  are  not  venturing  on  falsely  charted  seas. 

It,  therefore,  becomes  highly  proper  to  place  upon  record 
m  this  book  the  truth  as  to  Peary's  claim  to  87"  6'  in  1906. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  attempt  to  expose  the  fallacy  of  the 
claim  to  87"  6',  and  then  apply  the  rule  "False  in  one,  false  in 
*Shown  in  a  speech  of  Ck>iigTe88inan  Helgeaen  in  House  of  Representative! 
January  IS,  1010. 

258 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906? 


S59 


all, "  because  this  rule  is  not  applicable  to  analysis.  The  North 
Pole  claim  should  rest  on  its  own  merits.  There  are,  however, 
many  features  in  the  87°  6'  claim  that  shed  valuable  lif^t  on 
the  claim  to  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole. 

The  only  portion  of  the  400  pages  of  Peary's  book  Neareet 
the  Pole  that  relates  to  the  1906  expedition  while  on  the  polar 
sea,  consists  of  a  part  of  three  short  chapters. 

The  first  chapter  of  the  three  (Chap.  V  in  the  book)  "Sheri- 
dan to  the  Big  Lead"  has  only  20  pages  devoted  to  this  purpose 
(101  to  120). 

The  second :  (Chap.  VI)  "  Big  Lead  to  87»  6'  N.  Latitude  " 
devotes  12  pages  (123  to  135). 

The  third:  (Chap.  VII)  "Prom  87"  6'  to  the  Greenknd 
Coast"  devotes  11  pages  (ISO  to  150). 

Of  these  43  pages  mentioned,  only  12  pages  of  the  first 
chapter,  10  pages  of  the  second,  and  none  of  the  third — 22  pages 
m  all,  deal  in  facta  of  the  expedition.  Fully  <me  half  <A  these 
22  pages  are  filled  with  non-essential  matters,  having  no  bearing 
whatever  on  the  progress  of  the  expedition.  Therefore,  for  the 
present  examination,  it  may  be  said,  that  about  10  ftM  pages 
cover  all  that  is  narrative  needing  review.  These  few  pages 
contain  every  fact  in  existence  to  sustain  the  claim  of  Mr.  Peaty 
of  having  reached  87°  6'.  These  few  pages  may  be  committed 
to  memory  in  a  few  minutes.  The  last  part  of  Chapter  VI 
and  all  of  Chapter  VII  is  pure  fiction,  in  my  opinion.  They 
relate  to  travels  never  made — scenes  never  enacted— deeds 
never  performed. 

I  pr(^)ose  to  review  these  parts  of  these  three  chapters.  I 
have  made  a  plot  (Diagram  17)*to  assist  the  reader,  which  shows 
not  only  where  Peary  did  go,  but  where  he  said  he  w«it  but  did 
not  go.  This  diagram  may  be  checked  with  the  narrative, 
page  by  page,  and  will  be  found  I  think  to  conform  to  it.  It 
differs  so  much  from  Peary's  plotting  on  his  map  (No.  2)  here- 
with as  to  appear  like  the  plotting  of  a  different  voyage.  Peary's 
plotting  is  counterfeit  in  every  line  from  land  out  to  87'  8' 
and  back  to  land.  This  may  seem  incredible,  because  the 
*OppMite  page  860. 


AM 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


veracity  of  this  volume  Nearest  the  Pole,  has  never  before 
to  my  knowledge,  been  challenged.  Peary's  plot  is  more  than 
a  eomiterfeit  representation  of  the  written  story  of  that  portion 
over  which  he  actually  did  travel,  because  more  than  half  of 
it,  covers  a  fictitious  route  never  traversed. 

The  story  therefore  covering  the  latter  half  of  Chapters  VI 
and  Vn  is  not  narrative,  so  little  of  it  is  based  on  truth.  It 
is  romance.  There  are  so  many  incongruities  and  contradictions 
interwoven  with  half  truths,  which  together  make  such  a  tangled 
mess,  that  the  reader  should  spread  before  him  diagram  17  as 
he  reads,  because  it  is  difficult  in  view  of  these  peculiar  incon- 
gruities and  inconsistencies,  to  picture  m  words  alone,  the 
situation  as  it  truly  is.    I  will  however  make  it  all  clear. 

In  a  preceding  chapter  (VII)  discussing  "  Traveling  by  Com- 
pass," my  contention  is  that  it  was  impossible  for  Feaiy  to  have 
traveled  over  the  route  he  had  plotted  to  the  Pole,  without  con- 
stantlyknowing  his  compass  variation  and  his  longitude ;  and  that 
Peary's  testimony  before  the  Congressional  committee  that  he 

"considered  the  taking  of  observations  for  longitude 
a  waste  of  time" 

is  proof  enough  that  the  trip  was  never  made.  In  order  to 
better  arrange  my  argument  on  this  phase  of  the  subject  and 
to  give  greater  force  to  my  contention,  I  have  reserved  for  this 
chapter  to  bring  in  Mr.  Peaiy  as  vxUness  against  himself. 

On  March  6,  1906,  Peary  started  from  land  ostensibly  for 
the  North  Pole.  He  had  wintered  in  the  same  ship,  (Roosevelt, 
at  the  same  place,  (Cape  Sheridan)  that  he  did  in  1906-9.  But 
instead  of  starting  from  land  in  1906  from  Cape  Columbia  on 
the'  70th  meridian,  he  took  his  departure  from  Pomt  Moss— 
26  miles  farther  east.  But  in  his  wanderings  on  the  ice,  he 
crossed  and  recrossed  ihe  70th  meridian.  It  may,  therefore, 
be  said  that  he  traveled  in  both  seasons  over  the  same  district. 
His  companions  in  1906  were  Bartlett,  Uenscoi,  Marvin.  Clark. 
Ryan,  Dr.  Wdf  and  Eskimos. 


m^ 


WM' 


f 


1 

1 

mH} 

dUy^B' 

^ 

iji^B: 

•% 

Wi 

It 

1 

ttf 

■4 

Hi 

^i 

JFWt 

m. 

3  ' 

Mt 

f 

Hb 

* 

mmt: 

I 

isi 

1 

M 

f 

wBt: 

-* 

|hB! 

1 

ijw} 

%. 

lis! 

1^ 

iS 

^ 


Ir-. 


./' 


V        I 


I 

(V 


aa 
> 
ui 


CJ 


"i 


>*wM4 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906f 


261 


Henson,  with  a  light  equq>me&t,  had  started  on  ahead  to 
pionev  the  way  and  erect  the  igloos.  The  others  were  to  bring 
up  supplies  and  otherwise  assist  the  eq>edition. 

CM  March  26,  20  days  out  from  land,  after  making  18 
marches,  the  expedition  was  stopped  by  the  open  water  of  the 
"Big  Lead."  Two  days  of  the  20  days'  journey,  Peary's 
party  did  not  march.  Not  because  it  could  not,  but  because  it 
was  considered  by  him  advantageous  to  utilize  those  two  days 
otherwise.  At  the  6th  camp  from  land,  he  left  a  cache  called 
(No.  1).    At  the  14th  camp  he  left  another  cache  (No.  2). 

The  characteristics  oi  the  trip  north  were  excellent  going; 
splendid  weather;  rapid  progress  and  ctmstant  eastward  drift 
of  the  ice,  vbieh  his  obsovatirais  taken  later  while  at  the  lead 
showed  to  be  4.6  miles  per  day.  The  dist^ce  between 
Moss  and  the  "Big  Lead"  was  98  miles.  Therefore,  the 
average  length  of  marches  north  was  5.4  miles.  Th*-  onditi<m 
of  the  going  during  the  last  four  marches,  howe  ct,  was  so 
phenomenally  favorable  for  rapid  progress,  that  he  thought  he 
must  have  traveled  fully  12milCT  in  each  of  those  four  marches. 
The  length  <^  marches  cm  these  four  daynsTEeon]^  distance  on 
the  journQT  that  he  gives.  If  those  four  marches  covered  48 
miles,  then  the  first  50  miles  must  have  been  made  in  14  marches 
or  at  the  rate  of  S.5  miles  per  mnrch  in  northing.  lie  is  em- 
phatic in  his  daily  reports  all  tht  way  north,  in  expressing  his 
pleasure,  for  the  phenomenally  good  fortune  that  every  day 
befell  him.    On  the  5th  march,  he  says: 

"Things  are  too  favorable. " 
Of  the  last  day  (March  26)  he  writes: 

"A  glorious  day,  a  splendid  march, 

over  the  finest  going," 
and  then, 

"bang  up  against  it.    The   'Big  Lead.'" 

On  the  morning  oi  the  27th,  the  day  after  the  arrival, 
Peaiy  s^tys-  page  115: 

"I  climbed  a  pinnacle  to  reconnoitre,  and  was  not  en- 
couraged."   "The  lead  was  evidently   widening."    "Came 


IF  f 


l.'C    ■;. 


IMII 


262 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeovered 


If 


1' ^ 


r 

Is 


down  and  sent  a  note  to  the  Captain  (Bartlett)  that  if  K. 
could  not  get  across  to  return  with  even^one  Iwoidd^H  h;™ 
Sord  to'f:^^  their  m^  back  for  mo'l?  r^pillr t ^^j  t"^ 

ai^  ^^*  Captain  and  CUrk  got  away  befor«  noon  with  seven 
sledges,  and  I  moved  up  beside  the  lead  " 

ThU  was  the  last  that  was  seen  by  Peaiy,  of  any  of  his 
supportmg  parties  whUe  on  the  poUr  sea.  «^pt  RyL.  who 
.t  IS  aUeged  i««.hed  Peary's  camp  on  April  2  for  a  few  ZLZu, 
when  he  too.  was  c  iered  "right  back. "    Thenceforward  to  th^ 

^d  of  his  movemente  on  the  sea.  Peaiy  was  alone  with  his  own 
party  consisting  of  Henson  and  Eskimos. 

^^dther  Marvin  nor  Dr.  Wolf  went  as  far  north  as  the  "Big 

Pteary  remained  m  this  camp  seven  days  (or  until  Ryan 
ZI  H  ^^  'T'i.,^^  April  2).  awaiting  opportunit/ to 
^.  dnftmg  rteadUy  to  the  eastward  at  the  daS^rate  of  4.6 
^^L  ^'^''^''  *»'•  «"  «»«  30th.  whUe  unable  to  cross,  he 
got  the  observation  spoken  of  and  found  th^t  he  was  then  in : 

rUf^       I      ft  S'  °°'**''  I^nptude  74«  west'  approx.'." 
days  dnfting  at  4.6  miles  a  day  to  this  longitude  would  make  the 

^^sr(Z"^      "'  "^'  ^"^  ^"  "^^  «6th  as  being  in  Longitude 
77  St  (also    approx.  )atE. 

n,*nTv  I'f -'^^  ^}  f^  ^"^  ^  P'«'*^«  ^  «>«te  on  his 
map  (No  2),  IS  mtended  to  show  this  route  from  Point  Moss  to 
te  junction  at  the  Big  I^.  it  shows  an  irregukrTit 
trendmg  northwesterly  from  Moss;  or  from  Longitade  66-  80' 
to  longitude  740  west.    This  line  so  drawn  is  Pleading.  7t 

«  not  the  route  that  his  narrative  mdicates  he  took.   Im^rtan 
facts  are  concealed  which  indicate  a  diflFerent  route 

On  this  (1906)  trip,  before  he  reached  the  fictitious  part  of 
his  journey,  Peary  did  not  ««  p«ri  01 

.v«."r"t^!u'^  *  '^'^^  ""^  ^^  ^  ^^  observations." 
^«a  for  both  longitude  and  for  variation  of  the  compass. 
Uence,  we  are  fortunately  somewhat  enhghtened. 


Did  Peary  Reach  87*  6'  in  1906? 


MS 


I  quote  from  page  117:* 

March  80,  "Satisfactory  observations  with  sextant  and 
transit  gave  Latitude  84«  88'  Longitude  74  W.  Approx.  and 
Var.  107HW."  "We  were  somewhat  farther  west  than  I 
mtended  owing  to  the  constant  tendency  of  He  ..son  and  his 
partv  to  turn  to  the  left  in  negotiating  leads  and  areas  of  rough 
ice. 

I  will  endeavor  to  show  for  purposes  which  will  appear 
later  that  it  was  not  Henson  who  was  to  blame  for  this  westing. 
A  persmi  starting  for  the  North  Pole,  has  only  one  course  to 
make,  viz,,  due  north.  It  matters  not  where  he  finds  himself 
at  the  end  of  a  day's  march;  his  next  course  is  still  the  same — 
due  north.  But  when  he  is  out  of  sight  of  land,  he  cannot  tell, 
at  the  end  of  a  march  what  course  he  has  actually  made  unless 
he  knows  his  longitude  at  the  end  of  that  march.  But  as  k>ng  as 
he  is  in  sight  of  land,  he  needs  nothing  but  a  compass,  r^atdless 
of  its  variation,  to  guide  him.  He  can  take  his  bearings  as 
often  as  he  pleases  from  some  distinguishing  point  on  land,  and 
may  know  at  any  time  whether  he  is  working  to  the  east  or  to 
the  west  of  his  true  course. 

I  quote  from  page  l\/d: 

"  March  17.  A  glorious  day,  clear  as  crystal  and  the  sun  is 
shming  nearly  twelve  hours.  The  land  distinctly  visible,  but  not 
as  far  away  as  I  could  wish. " 

It  is  possible  that  if  the  land  was  disHncdy  visible  on  March 
17  at  the  11th  camp,  it  was  sufiSicientiy  visible  to  get  bearings, 
still  further  north;  but  as  he  does  not  mertion  the  land  again, 
I  have  drawn  on  diagram  No.  17  a  straight  line  due  north  from 
Moss  to  Camp  No.  11— A  to  B  to  C.  This  is  the  course  he 
could  have  taken  and  would  have  taken  if  he  toas  bound  for  the 
Pole.  The  very  day,  however,  that  he  lost  sight  of  Und, 
whatever  day  it  may  have  been,  he  was  himself  lost.  There 
was  no  avoidmg  it.  Camp  11,  if  due  north  from  Moss,  was  in 
Longitude  66'  80'.  The  18th  camp  (the  Big  Lead  Camp)  was 
esUblished  as  before  stated  in  Longitude  77'  82'.  It  is  clear, 
therefore,  (if  he  took  the  course  I  have  laid  out)  that  when  he 
*N»arul  the  Pole. 


864 


Hat  the  North  PoU  Been  Diacovered 


\"W 


III 


S-f  * 


went  in  to  the  18th  camp  at  the  lead  on  tin  26th.  he  must  have 

r^.'^r''",?  *^"*  ''*"*•  ^'**'^  "'  "°^»  (diagram  No.  17. 
^UU)h).  HopeUssly  lost  in  7  days  and  didn't  hum  it.  He  did 
not  know  it.  he  could  not  have  known  it  until  4  days  ther«. 
after,  on  the  80th.  at  noon,  vhen  he  got  an  observation  of  the 
nm,  and  his  longitude. 

His  excuse  that  Henson  was  to  blame  is  childish.  Henson 
was  not  navigating  the  expedition.  He  did  not  have  that 
responsibihty.  No  one  could  have  done  much  better,  or 
could  have  been  expected  to  have  done  much  better,  under  the 
conditions,  than  Henson  did. 

Later  on  in  his  stoiy.  (Page  142)  Peaiy  says  seemingly 
rather  egotisticaUy.  **^ 

"I  alone  of  the  party  knew  how  far  we  had  drifted. " 
If  Peaiy  had  been  actuaUy  bound  for  the  Pole  and  had 
taken  the  route  I  have  drawn,  then  the  line  CDE  is  a  graphical 
Ulustiation  of  a  navigator's  attempt  to  go  north,  from  Camp  11, 
end  of  nth  mareh."  but  finds  after  making  only  7  marches, 
that  he  had  unconsciously  turned  quarter  round  a  circle.  Seven 
more  marches  with  the  same  proportionate  error,  would  have 
made  a  semicircle,  heading  directly  back  for  land. 

I  have  ahtjady  mentioned  that  Amundson  says  and  demon- 
strates that  this  would  be  the  inevitable  consequence  of  such 
methods.  Yet  this  same  navigator,  Peary,  after  this  realisUc 
expCTience  and  others  yet  to  be  mentioned,  had  the  assurance  to 
testify  beiore  the  Congressional  committee,  that  three  years 
later  (m  1909)  without  even  knowing  the  variation  of  his  com- 
pass,  or  the  longitude  of  a  single  camp,  he  marched  over  this 
same  course  in  the  same  month  in  the  year,  over  the  same 
wsterly  drifting  polar  pack,  from  Cape  Columbia  to  the  North 
Pole,  and  right  over  the  North  Pole  mto  the  opposite  hemis- 
phere.  a  distance  of  420  mUes,  diiecUy  on  the  70th  meridian 
(and  Its  extension  beyond  the  pole)  aU  the  way,  and  that  he 
walked  directly  back,  pracUcally  stepping  in  the  foot  prints  of 
tte  outward  mareh,  straight  up  to  the  cliffs  of  Cape  Columbia, 
54  days  later. 


Did  Peary  Reach  87*  6'  in  19069 


To  return  to  the  narrative.  I  have  plotted  the  route  A  B 
C  D  E  on  the  theory  that  Peary  started  with  a  purpows  to  go 
to  the  Pole.  I  wish  to  accept  this  theory  in  my  argument, 
until  it  is  later  proven  to  be  otherwise.  If,  therefore,  Peary  had 
traveled  12  miles  a  day  the  last  four  days  on  this  route  with  a 
course  from  northwest  to  west,  he  would  in  each  of  these  four 
days  have  overcome  about  4^  miles  of  easterly  drift,  and 
would  have  advanced  westerly  only  about  7^  miles  a  day. 

If  it  shall  turn  out  that  he  made  this  westing  on  the  la    ' 
ice.  or  on  still  ice.  before  he  reached  Camp  11    and  into 
current,  then  his  purpose  was  not  to  go  to  the  Pole,  but  to 
out  only  a  short  distance;  and  was  using  precaution  by  work 
west  that  he  might  return  safely  to  his  starting  point,  or 
land,  and  not  be  carried  by  the  current  to  the  Atlantic. 

I  quote  from  page  119: 

"April  3.     Ryan  came  in  about  nine  last  evening  ^ 
three  men  Ahngodoblaho.  Teddy,  and  Itukashoo" 

He  brought  very  light  loads.     But  it  all  helps,  and  Mh 
an^Chrk  must  he  close  behind."    .     .     .     "I  went  across 
lead)  with  eveiy  one  except  Ryan  and  two  of  his  men  (I 
the  other  one  with  me)  who  started  right  back. " 

This  was  the  last  seen  of  Ryan,  the  Ust  of  his  supp« 
parties.  My  opinion  is,  that  this  is  also  the  last  paragr^ 
his  book  of  actual  facts,  until  he  reaches  land  on  May  9.  v^.^ 
has  now  in  his  story  crossed  the  Big  Lead  at  F  (Diagru.i  17). 
From  this  point  on,  until  he  reaches  land,  the  narrative  and  the 
plotting  accompanying  the  narrative,  appear  to  me  to  be  entirely 
invention. 

Peary  indicates  that  he  did  not  think  when  Ryan  left  that 
he  had  seen  the  last  of  his  supporting  parties.  He  pretends  at 
least  that  he  was  hourly  and  anxiously  expecting  the  arrival  of 
both  Marvin  and  Ckrk  with  much  needed  supplies.  He  alleges, 
however,  that  on  the  morning  after  Ryan  left,  April  3,  he  (Peary) 
crossed  the  Big  Lead,  (on  the  south  side  of  which  he  had  been 
detamed  for  seven  days),  and  made  3  marches  north  (34  miles). 
He  was  then  again  stopped  by  the  " big  stcrm. "  (at  G,  Diag.  17) 


ok 


h  in 
'ear> 


Mtf 


H(u  tht  North  Pole  Bern  Diteovered 


i' 


unable  to  move  for  another  seven  days,  or  until  the  mominR  of 
the  14th. 

I  quote  from  paii^e  125: 

"The  spring  tides  of  the  April  full  moon  were  running  now, 
and  with  the  wind  would  probably  open  the  Hudson  River 
agam. 

"Marvin,  however,  and  I  hoped  Clark  should  be  well  over 
by  this  time  with  their  supplies  and  out  on  the  road. " 

(Thes.  Husions  to  Marvin  and  CUrk  should  be  borne  in 
mind.) 

Whether  Clark  crossed  the  lead,  or  how  near  he  came  to 
reaching  the  camp  on  the  south  side  of  it,  is  not  recorded.  But 
subsequent  events  show  that  he  must  have  been  close  by,  when 
the  storm  struck.  It  appears  equally  clear  that  both  Marvin 
and  Bartlett  long  before  this  date  had  made  tracks  for  land. 
It  is  quite  evident  that  neither  Bartlett  nor  Marvin  made  any 
eff  jrt  after  they  turned  back  on  the  27th  to  again  join  Peary. 

On  April  13,  the  storm  abated.  Storm  Camp,  (if  such  a 
camp  existed)  had  drifted  and  Peary  of  course  with  it  in  the 
seven  days  to  H.  Peary  took  observations  on  this  day  and 
writes  on  page  129  that: 

"these  observations  gave  our  latitude  85"  12'  and  our  longitude 
but  shghUy  west  of  the  ship  at  Sheridan."  Perhaps  10  minutes 
west. 

I  will  assume  his  longitude  to  be  61"  40'  at  H  as  Sheridan 
appears  to  be  on  Peary's  map  at  61*  80'. 

He  writes  on  page  180: 

"  It  was  evident  that  I  could  no  longer  count  in  the  slightest 
degree  upon  my  supporting  parties,  and  that  whatever  was  to  be 
done  now  must  be  done  with  the  party,  the  equipment,  the 
supplies  I  li ad  with  me." 

TL.  «e  days  later,  under  date  of  April  16,  page  182,  he 
describes  this  equipment  (which  I  will  insert  here  ii.  advance  of 
the  journey)  as  follows: 

"i^  J®  ^^^  (second  ramp  farther  north)  six  worn  out  dogs 
were  killed  and  fed  to  the  others  to  save  our  small  store  of 
pemmican  and  the  skeleton  condition  of  these  dogs  as  shown 
when  they  were  skinned,  threw  my  men  into  a  temporary  panic, 


Did  Peary  Reath  87'  6'  in  1906f 

M  thqr  laid  that  the  entire  pack  might  give  out  at  any  time 
and  thev  wanted  to  turn  back  from  here,  but  I  told  them  I  waa 
not  ready  to  turn  back  yet.  and  shodd  not  be  until  we  had  made 
at  least  Jue  more  marchea  to  the  north. " 

(This  condition  of  his  equipment  will  be  important  to 
remember  who.  we  come  to  read  of  what  they  afterwaidi  are 
alleged  to  have  accomplished.) 

On  April  18  when  the  storm  abated  Peary  was  placed  in 
much  the  same  position  in  reUtion  to  this  expedition  that  he 
later  was  phKwd  in  in  1900  at  the  alleged  Bnrtlett  Camp,  after 
separating  from  BarUett.  His  expedition  being  wrecked,  he  is 
now  as  then  alone  with  Henson  mH  the  Eskimos.  Now  as  in 
1909  the  tone,  the  character  anc  purport  of  the  narrative 
mstanUy  and  notably  cL-  The  disappomtments.  dis- 

couragements, the  apparent :     joi  of  the  last  1 4  days  give  way 
strangely  enough  to  exultant  i.  -pes.    His  heroic,  buoyant  spirit 
now  lifts  him  into  seemingly  heavenly  visions.    He  writes  a 
prelude,  ouUining  a  "program"  for  the  first  time  on  the  joum«?y, 
of  what  he  will  do,  or  hopes  to  do  in  the  next  few  days.    His 
predictions  are  wonderfully  accurate.    The  experience  thus  far 
to  this  point  is  no  guide  for  him.    He  is  now  aiming  high  m  his 
mmd,  for  at  least  a  worid  record.    He  is  determined,  notwith- 
standing his  obvious  handicap  by  the  condition  of  his  equipment, 
thenceforth  to  make  long  marches,  long  hours,  and  bound  over 
the  dnftmg  ice  pack  to  a  point  where  glory  awaits  his  coming. 
The    guarduin  angel "  (as  in  a  Utcr  year)  seemingly  guides  his 
visions.    There  must,  of  course,  henceforth  be  smooth  ice  all 
the  way;  fair  winds.    The  marches  must  average  with  these 
skeleton  dogs,  over  six  times  the  number  of  mUes  that  they 
have  averaged  thus  far  on  the  journey  when  they  were  in  their 
best  condition.    There  must  be  no  delay  by  such  obstructions  as 
have  been  heretofore  encountered,  consumhig  nearly  half  the 
time  so  far  since  leaving  hmd.    Dogs  must  shake  the  fatigue 
and  hunger  from  their  flc'.:  -s  frames,  and  be  equal  to  the 
superktive  unprecedente    u.k  ..    -  them.    Men  must  put 
forth  exceptioual  efforts  i.rcitr  tew  .n.    He  had  been  traveling 


9  m^.- 

I 

■ 


i  I 


% 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


over  land  ice  largely,  which  was  comparatively  smooth  and 
still,  from  Moss  to  Big  Lead  camp,  a  distance  of  98  miles,  but 
it  required  20  days.  He  now  proposed  smce  he  had  crossed  the 
dividing  open  lead  and  was  out  upon  the  broken,  floating,  drift- 
ing, polar  pack  to  make  225  miles  in  the  next  7H  days. 

Before  him  as  at  the  Bartlett  Camp,  was  an  unknown 
solitude  never  visited  by  man.  There  could  have  been  no 
doubt  m  his  mind  that  along  that  prospective  route  there  were 
islands  of  ice;  archipelagoes  of  ice;  perhaps  moimtains  and 
continents  of  ice.  Behmd  him  he  had  traveled  on  land  ice, 
more  or  less  attached  to  the  land,  held  by  the  land;  but  now 
he  had  crossed  the  "Hudson  River"  which  separates  the  polar 
pack  from  this  land  ice.  Before  him  is  the  polar  sea,  a  great 
stream  bounding  these  ice  fields  along  to  the  Atlantic  at  a  rate 
of  at  least  4.6  miles  per  day.  As  he  advanced  into  this  turbulent 
current  so  graphically  described  by  Borup,  possibly  this  drift 
may  be  found  for  all  he  could  then  know,  to  be  more  than  4.6 
miles  per  day. 

April  14  he  is  ready  to  start,  in  his  story.  He  writes  on 
pages  129  and  130  a  characteristic  prologue  to  this  undertaking, 
which  has  a  familiar  soimd. 

"I  bent  every  energy  to  setting  a  record  pace.  In  the 
legacy  of  irretrievable  damage  which  the  storm  had  left  us  was 
one  small  codicil  of  good.  Such  snow  as  the  wind  had  not  torn 
from  the  face  of  the  floes  was  beaten  and  banked  hard,  and  the 
snow  which  had  fallen  had  been  hammered  into  the  areas  of 
rough  ice  and  the  shattered  edges  of  the  big  floes,  so  that  they 
gave  us  little  trouble.  North  of  Storm  Camp  we  had  no  occasion 
for  snow  shoes  or  pickaxes. " 

"On  the  old  floes  where  it  had  not  scoured  the  snow  oflF 
entoely,  it  had  packed  it  harder,  and  the  patches  of  rough  ice, 
and  the  pressure  ridges  were  now  filled  with  snow  hammered 
tn  until  it  wovid  bear  a  mule.  Our  tracks  were  more  distinct 
than  they  were  six  days  before.  To  the  north  was  a  large  floe 
stretching  as  far  as  the  eye  could  see.  It  was  a  day  of  April 
weather  reminding  me  verj-  much  of  the  ice  cap;  blue  sky  with 
deUcate  'mare's  taU'  clouds,  then  banks  of  fog,  flurries  of  snow, 
and  blue  sky  again,  with  a  continuous  light  W.  S.  W;  wind 
carrymg  a  low  drift  along  the  surface." 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906? 


269 


This  surely  was  a  propitious  outlook.  How  beneficial 
that  storm  proved  to  be  to  a  hopeful  mind.  But  how  noticeably 
different  m  its  effect  upon  the  going,  from  the  previous  storm 
endmg  on  the  Sd.  (ten  days  before)  described  on  pages  128  and 
124.  I  wiU  pause  to  quote  it  that  we  may  start  with  a  clear 
understandmg. 

"Thick  and  blowing  from  the  north  aU  night,  and  the  same 

Jiffl^.rr*.'^^"''  *ry  ^^^  f"^-    The  diffuLllSht  n^eTt 
difficult   to   foUow   the   nearly  wind-ohliierated  traU. 
These  places  (rubble  ice)  served  as  nets  to  catch  aU  the  snow 
blown  off  the  level  places,  and  there  it  lay  soft  anddL     UwZ 
going  that  would  seriously  discourage  ai  ordinary  pity  " 

This  was  wntten  at  a  time  when  he  was  assummg  that  his 
supportmg  parties  would  soon  join  him  and  accompany  him 
further  north,  when  slow  progress  might  have  been  expected. 

These  two  descriptions  are.  that  the  effect  of  the  first  storm 
Wmd  obliterated  the  trail." 

The  effect  of  the  last  made 

"The  tracks  more  distinct." 

The  first  made  the  ice  catch  the  snow  where  it 
"Lay  soft  and  deep." 

The  last 

"Hammered  it  in  until  it  would  bear  a  mule  " 
The  first. 

The  1^*  ^"^  **"*  ^"""^^  discourage  an  ordinary  man. " 
"Left  a  codicil  of  good." 

immL?^!**  /T  ^^  paragraphs  quite  fuUy  because  they 
immediately  follow  the  prologue  and  unmistakably  indicate  I 
an  attentive  reader  that  from  this  time  on  tiie  sto^r  is  to  W 
he  region  of  facts  and  enter  the  reahn  of  fancy.  Narrati^  i^ 
lr^7m:r^  ^^^^^^^^  P-^P^  ^t  quoted  on 

in  t  J- *  '^'^'  henceforward,  as  wiU  be  noticed,  is  a  dupUcate 

n  the  impressions  it  attempts  to  make,  of  the  story  just  b<rfow 

eavmg  the  Bartiett  Camp  for  the  north.    PearySZ^ 

ever,  appears  to  be  so  barren  of  true  imaginS>n.TLit^ 


'  i 


i!;r 


270 


n<u  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


in  ingenious  ideas,  that  he  uses  in  both  stories  ahnost  identically 
the  same  incidents,  conditions,  circumstances  and  distances. 
The  same  method  and  hour  of  arrival  at  his  northern  destina- 
tion; the  same  manner  of  retummg  to  the  starting  point;  and 
in  some  instances  he  uses  almost  the  identical  words  in  the 
descriptions.  This  fact  will  be  so  apparent  that  attention  will 
scarcely  need  again  to  be  called  to  it. 

On  the  morning  of  April  14,  he  says  that  he  started  out. 
On  April  21,  7^  days  later,  just  before  noon,  he  says  that  he 
reached  the  end  of  this  journey  north,  at  Latitude  87*  6'  at  J 
(Diag.  17).  No  longitude  given.  He  has  plotted  the  spot  on 
his  map  (No.  2)  mdicating  its  longitude  to  be  60»W. 

There  is  sufficient  data  given  in  narrating  the  story  of  this 
imaginary  trip  northward,  that  may  be  used  before  proceeding 
farther  from  which  to  make  a  few  simple  deductions. 

First:  If  he  had  started  on  the  morning  of  April  14  and 
reached  his  destination  at  noon  April  21,  he  would  have  been 
7J^  days  enroute. 

Second:  If  he  had  started  from  Latitude  85*  12'  and 
reached  Latitude  87°  6',  he  would  have  made  104  miles  of 
northing. 

Third:  If  he  had  started  from  Longitude  61»  40'  and 
stopped  at  Longitude  50%  he  would  have  moved  eastward  W 
40^,  or  48.8  nautical  miles.*  (Whether  this  astonishing  easting 
represents  drift,  or  error  in  navigation,  he  does  not  indicate  as 
he  did  in  accusing  Henson,  at  Camp  18.  If  it  were  drift,  it 
would  not  have  affected  the  distance  of  travel  northward.  He 
would  simply  have  drifted  eastward  without  adding  to  physical 
effort.) 

With  these  alleged  facts  in  mind,  we  may  proceed  with  the 
outiine. 

On  page  181  he  describes  the  journey,  pitched  to  the  new 
tune. 

There  are  4.19  nautical  miles  in  one  degree  of  longitude  »i  latitude  M" 
It  u  unnecessary  to  make  distinctions  in  this  illustntion  between  nautical' 
statute  and  route  miles.    Nautical  miles  are  sufficient.  ' 


Did  Peary  Reach  87"  6'  in  1906? 


271 


"The  first, march  of  ten  hours,  mysef  in  the  lead,  with  the 
compass,  sometimes  on  a  dog  trot,  the  sledges  following  in 
Indian  file  with  drivers  running  beside  or  behind,  place  us  30 
miles  to  the  good;  my  Eskimos  said  forty." 

(Perhaps  it  should  have  been  forty,  but  I  suspect  that  these 
Eskimos'  opinions  are  added  in  order  to  indicate  that  his  own 
estimate  is  conservative.)    But  we  will  consider  it  SO  miles. 

"Attheendof  themarch,  Iwasatiredman.  Had  raised 
blisters  on  the  bottom  of  both  my  feet,  and  soft  as  I  was  after  the 
days  m  camp,  was  sore  in  every  bone  with  the  rapid  pace,  which 
was  not  leaa  than  three  miles  an  hour.  My  Eskimos  insisted  it  was 
nearer  four." 

"The  next  day"  (which  would  have  been  Apr.  16th)  "we 
traveled  ten  hours,".  .  .  "We  traveled  at  a  good  pace  again 
during  this  march,  and  I  felt  that  we  had  covered  thiHy  miles 
more.     I  hoped  it  was  more  than  this  even. " 

We  will  call  it  80  miles. 

Page  182: 

Next  march  (Apr.  16th). 

"Our  pace  during  this  march  was  not  less  than  two  and 
one  half  miles  an  hour. " 

This  probably  is  intended  to  mean  about  25  miles  for  the 
march.    We  will  put  it  down  as  25  miles. 

Page  182,  April  17.  He  now  enters  the  proposed  quinary 
district  the  end  of  which  is  to  terminate  his  journey  north.  He 
gives  no  specific  distance  of  travel  on  this  day,  but  as  the  going 
in  the  story  continually  improves,  the  mdications  clearly  are 
that  this  march  is  supposed  to  equal  the  best  up  to  this  time, 
presumably  thirty  miles.    I  will  assume  it  to  be  80  miles. 

Next  march,  (Apr.  18th). 

"No  serious  trouble  was  experienced  in  crossing  the  lead  as 
I  had  expected.  "This  was  the  first  entirely  calm 

day  since  leaving  the  big  lead. "  " No  old  floes. "  "Traveled 
ten  hours.  "Dogs  much  excited."  .  .  .  "Undoubtedly 
a  scent  from  a  seal  in  an  open  lead."  "I  found  it  difficult  to 
keep  ahead  of  them  even  by  running,  so  stepped  aside  and  let 
them  pass.  **  *  "As  we  advanced,  the  character  of  the 
\ce  improved.  "Floes  larger"— "rafters  more  infrequent." 
Our  pace  was  heart  breaking. "  "As  the  dogs  gave  out.  un- 
able to  keep  the  pace,  they  were  fed  to  others. " 


M 


m 


i  J 


«7« 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


No  miles  given,  but  as  every  sentence  in  the  cbove 
paragraph  indicates  that  it  was  written  to  justify  great  speed  or 
a  march  equal  at  least  to,  if  not  greater  than,  the  best,  since 
leaving  Storm  Camp;  presumably  thirty  miles. 

Next  day,  l&th,  no  record  given. 

Next  march,  page  ISS,  April  20.  The  reader  will  now 
recognize  a  familiar  scene — ^an  old  friend.    Listen : 

"We  came  into  a  region  of  open  leads,  trending  nearly 
north  and  sovth".  .  "Hurrying  on  between  these  leads  a 
forced  march  was  made. " 

I  do  not  know  exactly  what  a  "forced  march"  means  in 
this  instance;  but  I  judge  from  the  language  in  the  paragraph 
that  he  wished  the  reader  to  infer  that  he  forced  more  time,  or 
more  miles  into  this  march  than  he  did  in  any  one  of  the  six 
preceding  marches.  The  length  of  this  march  probably  should 
be  t  :Jed  S6  miles  in  order  to  fairly  represent  the  description 
when  considered  in  connection  with  the  preceding  paragraphs. 

The  next  and  last,  April  21,  (page  184). 

"Starting  again  soon  after  midnight  (of  20th)  pushed  on 
till  a  little  before  noon  of  the  21st. " 

This  probably  is  intended  for  the  usual  march  of  10  hours, 
"after  midnight  until  a  little  before  noon"  probably  means 
from  1  a.  m.  to  11  a.  m.,  because  he  says  before  starting  on  the 
return  the  same  day  (Page  189)  that: 

"We  had  already  made  a  good  day's  march,  now  we  had  to 
duplicate  it  without  rest  or  food. " 

"A  good  day's  march,"  judging  by  the  previous  descrip- 
tions, would  probably  mean  a  march  of  25  to  30  miles,  or  2^ 
to  8  miles  an  hour,  but  some  of  these  marches  are  only  my  own 
interpretations  as  to  their  length.  In  order,  therefore,  not  to 
get  the  aggregate  number  of  miles  greater  than  the  description 
justifies,  we  will  call  this  last  northern  march  not  "a  good 
march, "  but  half  of  a  good  march,  or  15  miles.  This  is  probably 
enough  because  he  says  he  returned  the  same  day  over  the  same 
space,  "without  food  or  rest,"  which  would  be  80  miles  for  the 
day. 


Did  Peary  lUaeh  87'  6'  in  1906? 


27S 


The  deed  in  the  story  is  now  done.    The  world  record  is 
beaten.    The  glory  of  Cagni  passes  to  another. 
Page  184: 

"When  my  observations  were  taken  and  rapidly  figured 
they  showed  that  we  had  reached  87"  6'  north  latitude  and  had 
at  last  beaten  the  record,  for  which  I  thanked  (jod  with  as  good 
grace  as  possible,  though  I  felt  that  the  mere  beating  of  the 
record  was  but  an  empty  bauble  compared  with  \he  splendid 
jewel  on  which  I  had  set  my  heart  for  years,  and  for  which,  on 
this  expedition, -I  had  almost  literally  been  straining  my  life  out." 
"My  bitter  disappointment  combmed  perhaps  with  a  certain 
degree  of  physical  exhaustion  from  our  killing  pace  on  scant 
rations,  gave  me  the  deepest  fit  of  the  blues  that  I  experienced 
during  the  entire  expedition." 

When  he  attempted  to  return  he  emphasizes  the  effects  ^f 
his  exhaustion  by  saying  "My  feet  dragged  like  lead,  etc.,  etc." 
No  doubt  he  would  have  been  tired.  Anybody  would  have 
been  tired  after  such  e  "strain." 

He  mentions  no  longitude  at  87"  6'.  But  as  he  claims  to 
have  made  the  five  marches  that  he  says  he  told  his  Eskimos  on 
the  16th  he  would  make;  and  as  those  6  marches  would  include 
a  march  (or  half  march)  on  April  21,  we  must  conclude  that  his 
story  means  that  he  marched  on  the  17th  and  19th  even  though 
he  made  no  record  of  marching  on  those  two  days.  The  correct- 
ness of  this  conclusion  will  later  be  proven  in  other  ways. 

I  must  repeat  that  the  length  in  miles  of  the  last  4^ 
marches  are  not  definitely  given  by  Peaiy,  but  I  can  give  no 
other  interpretation  to  the  riddles,  as  to  their  lengths,  than 
those  I  have  mentioned.  The  daily  descriptions,  the  fearful 
exhaustion  at  the  end,  the  language  throughout,  all  surely  are 
intended  to  convey  these  very  impressions  to  the  reader. 

But  alas  and  alack!  Th^  foot  up  an  aggregate  total 
distance  in  the  7^  marches  of  SS6  miles  as  shown  by  the  line 
north  and  south  on  Diag.  17  (H  to  I)!  To  ktitude  89"  north, 
double  the  true  distance  in  northing,  as  shown  by  the  observa- 
tions! A  strange  and  iaconceivabie  incongruity!  100  percent 
discrepancy! 


:l 


r|. 


U    5" 


[  I-  • 


II -I 


i  -. 


II  'f 


274 


Haa  the  North  Pde  Been  Diaoovered 


Here  is  surely  an  inexplicable  chaos.    I  know  not  how 
such  irremediable  confusion  can  be  made  to  confonn  with  any 
known  fact,  with  truth  or  with  common  sense.     It  presents  for 
our  consideration  a  flat  contradiction,  which  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled with  any  conceivable  theory,  of  being  a  truthful  record. 
Can  anyone  read  this  story  and  tell  to  what  point  in  the 
Aretic  Peary  intended  to  land  his  hero  at  the  end  of  his  northern 
journey  of  the  alleged  7}4  marches?     Was  it  at  87»  6'  or  89-? 
Shall  we  believe  that  he  took  an  observation  before  starting, 
on  the  14th,  and  another  at  the  end,  on  the  21st,  and  computed 
them  correctly,  and  found  his  northern  location  to  be  at  ST  6', 
and  that  he  had  traveled  in  7H  days  104  miles?    Or  shall  we 
believe  his  detailed  daily  record  of  the  actual  miles  traveled, 
and  that  he  made  a  journey  in  those  7)^  days  of  225  miles  and 
reached  latitude  89°  north,  within  one  degree  of  the  North 
Pole,  but  had  not  discovered  the  discrepancy  when  the  book 
was  published? 

Can  one  admit  either  of  these  statements  to  be  true  and 
repudiate  the  other,  witliout  necessarily  admitting  that  the 
author  is  an  untruthful  narrator?  This  incongruity  can  only 
be  accounted  for  (if  intentionally  pubKshed)  on  the  theory  that 
Peaiy  in  writing  it  was  acting  his  dual  character  of  Dr.  Jekyll 
and  Mr.  Hyde.  That  Dr.  JekyU  took  the  observations  at 
Storm  Camp,  and  again  at  87"  6'  and  traveled  a  distance  of  104 
miles  between  those  termmals.  That  Mr.  Hyde  wrote  the  log 
book  and  made  the  daily  descriptions  of  the  conditions,  and 
of  the  speed,  and  was  the  individual  who  became  so  fearfully 
exhausted  by  traveling  225  miles  in  the  7}4  days  (from  H  to  I). 
(Nothing  is  said  in  the  narrative  about  Mr.  Hyde's  return  from 
89").  Some  explanation  not  apparent  to  the  writer,  possibly 
could  be  made  of  this  apparently  grotesque  exposure. 

It  would  not  be  true,  in  defense  of  this  descrepancy  to  say 
that  these  distances  are  mistaken  estimates— dead  reckonings; 
because  if  that  were  true  they  would  only  have  been  for  Peary's 
personal  information  and  guide  on  the  journey,  until  he  could 
have  taken  observations,  and  knew  whether  or  not  they  were 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906? 


915 


correct.  They  are  published  as  facts  in  an  historical  narrative, 
after  Vie  alleged  obaervaiiona  were  taken  and  his  position  known. 
Neither  can  it,  in  extenuation  be  said  that  possibly  he  did  not 
intend  to  represent  that  he  traveled  on  the  17th  and  19th,  on 
which  days  he  makes  no  mention  of  specfic  miles,  or  even  of 
traveling;  because  if  the  distance  figured  for  those  two  days 
were  deducted  (which  two  days  are  more  than  one  fourth  of  the 
time  of  the  journey)  the  total  would  still  be  far  too  wide  of  the 
mark  to  be  published  as  a  fact.  Besides  the  story  of  the  return 
journey  to  Storm  Camp  would  contradict  it.  He  writes  that 
he  made  the  return  marches  to  Storm  Camp  in  the  same  time 
as  on  the  outward  march.  Lost  no  time  on  the  return,  and 
every  day  "stimibled  into  the  igloo"  built  on  the  outward 
journey  which  would  make  7  igloos.  Besides  this,  he  could 
not  have  made  "5  marches"  from  the  16th  which  he  said  he 
would  make,  without  including  these  two  days. 

There  b,  therefore,  no  disputiog  the  fact  that  his  narrative 
statements  of  daily  travel  show  practically  twice  as  great  a 
distance  as  the  truth  established  by  the  alleged  observations 
warrants. 

This  refers  to  northing.  The  easting  is  also  in  error;  and 
by  the  circumstances,  in  as  great  an  error.  If  one  had  set  his 
course  north  from  Longitude  61"  40',  how  could  he  have  found 
himself  in  longitude  60°,  48.5  miles  to  the  east  of  his  starting 
point  in  a  joum^  of  104  miles?  This  48.5  miles  could  not  in 
actual  experience  have  been  caused  by  drift.  Is  he  then  in- 
tentionally or  unintentionally  representing  faulty  tumgation? 
Such  a  result  in  actual  experience  could  happen  only  from 
faulty  navigation.  The  drift  alone,  in  7H  days,  at  4.6  miles 
a  day,  would  have  taken  him  east  only  84.5  miles,  instead  of 
48.5,  which  would  still  leave  an  error,  all  things  considered 
as  wide  of  the  mark  as  is  the  error  in  northing.  Could  a  writer' 
do  no  better  in  a  story?  Can  such  a  jumbled  mess  possibly  be 
accepted  by  anybody  as  the  record  of  an  explorer's  diary? — 
of  actual  experience?  Were  these  allied  long  marches  north 
the  actual  strain  on  the  endurance  of  living  men  who  did  no 


878 


m 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Di$cot)end 


vL 


SI  '»ii 


I  si  fi 

u 


know  from  their  feelings  or  the  circumstances  whether  they  had 
traveled  225  miles  or  104?— That  a  navigator  of  an  expedition 
did  not  know?  Not  even  after  getting  an  observation?  Not 
even  after  returning  the  second  time,  over  the  same  route,  in 
the  same  tracks,  in  the  same  length  of  time}  That  he  does  not 
know  any  better  than  to  publish  them  as  facts,  a  year  after  the 
aUeged  transactions?  Or  to  let  them  stand  as  history  for  10 
years?  Is  there  in  fact  any  one  thing  in  this  imagmaiy  journey 
north  of  Storm  Camp,  or  one  thing  in  the  real  journey  from  Moss 
to  the  big  lead,  as  a  matter  of  navigation,  that  will  lead  one  to 
believe  that  the  author  did  so  much  better  in  1909? 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  reason,  if  there  can  be  a 
reason  for  locating  the  most  northern  point  in  the  story  on  the 
60th  meridian,  is  immaterial.    The  fact  that  it  is  so  located,  is 
evidence  enough  that  it  is  either  an  ignorant  miscalculation  in  a 
fictitious  story;  or  it  is  positive  proof  in  a  true  story  that  it  is 
unpossible  to  travel  over  pressure  ridges  and  drifting  pokr  ice 
floes,  and  keep  on  a  meridian  without  constantly  knowing  the 
longitude.    It,  therefore,  makes  no  difference  for  the  present 
chief  purpose,  whether  as  a  story  it  is  true  or  false;  because  in 
either  case  it  proves  that  the  navigating  cbim  of  1909  w  fictitious. 
It  proves  it  because  the  same  person  wrote  the  two.  and  must 
have  written  tiiem  both  in  entire  ignorance,  or  in  thoughtiess- 
ness  of  tiie  principles  of  navigation,  or  else  m  downright  moral 
abandon.    It  is  good  enough  evidence  that  the  author  never 
attempted  actual  navigation  in  his  life,  and  tiiat  he  did  not 
study  tiie  consequences  that  would  follow  such  an  attempt  in  a 
story. 

It  may  be  admitted  that  tiie  error  m  tiie  course  between  the 
lltii  and  18tii  camps,  ie  tiie  trutii,  and  that  tiie  error  was 
caused  by  Henson.  That  he  made  a  quarter  of  a  circle  in 
seven  marches,  even  though  at  that  time  he  knew  the  compass 
vanation.  But  tiiat  was  an  error  to  the  west  of  the  tine  course. 
A  very  natimd  error  to  make,  when  combating  an  easterly 
drift.  But  m  tiie  aUeged  marches  now  under  consideration,  tiie 
conditions  were  different,  and  Henson  cannot  in  tiiis  instimce 


Did  Peary  Reach  87*  6'  in  1906f 


VJl 


be  made  the  scapegoat.  Peary  says  on  page  ISl  that  when  he 
started  out,  he  took  the  lead  himself;  "compaet  in  hand." 
He  knew  the  variation.  (107^°  W.)  His  purpose  in  the  story 
was  to  go  directly  north.  To  make  all  the  northing  possible 
with  the  fewest  steps.  The  drift  was  east.  It  does  not  require 
a  skilled  navigator  to  know  that  to  go  directly  north  in  such 
circtimstances,  the  course  must  be  shaped  enough  to  the  west 
of  north,  to  counteract  the  easterly  drift.  Dimib  animals 
know  enough  for  this  by  common  instinct,  when  swimming  a 
stream,  liirds  know  enough  for  this  when  flying  in  a  wind. 
If  this  were  a  true  story,  Peary  would  have  steered  west  of 
north,  himself  judging  every  hour,  by  the  swiftness  of  the 
current,  and  by  the  swiftness  of  his  march,  as  to  how  many 
points  to  the  west  he  should  shape  his  course.  If  he  had 
smooth  going,  in  a  clear  day,  he  might  direct  a  course  approxi- 
mately correct;  but  he  would  not  positively  know  whether  he 
had  or  not  until  he  had  taken  another  longitude  observation. 
But  whether  he  steered  too  much  to  the  west,  or  too  little,  he 
would  have  with  certainty,  to  some  extent,  counteracted  the  effect 
of  the  current.  In  other  words  at  the  end  of  the  7)^  marches, 
he  would  not  have  foimd  himself  as  far  to  the  east  as  the  cuirent 
naturally  would  have  carried  him,  had  he  not  attempted  by 
shaping  his  course  westerly  to  counteract  it. 

This  is  as  simple  and  as  certam,  as  that  2  and  2  make  4.  It 
is  just  as  simple,  and  just  as  certain,  that  the  repreKntation  in 
the  pint  that  the  location  at  87"  6'  would  have  been  on  the  50ih 
meridiai:^  after  7^  days  attempt  to  travel  north,  is  unmistakably 
and  undeniably  a  blundering  invention;  that  it  is  not  and 
cannot  be  based  on  actual  experience,  because  that  meridian  is 
not  a  less  distance,  to  the  east  of  his  starting  point  than  the 
extent  of  the  drift,  (S4.5  miles)  but  is  a  greater  (48.5).  There- 
fore, longitude  50'  b  logically  an  impossible  location,  logically 
a  false  location. 

But  whether  fiction  or  fact,  I  must  repeat  &.  '  "Mnphasisse 
the  repetition  that  it  proves  the  falsity  of  the  19(h)  claim  of 
impossible  navigation  which  is  my  chief  purpose.    No  man 


878 


Baa  ike  North  PoU  Bfen  DUcooend 


hi 


m^ 


i 

3 

\ 


telhng  he  truth  copymc  h«  fact-  from  a  diary,  and  fwm 
ob«.rvat,ons  would  mistake  his  r  'Sing  i„  7^  jay.  travel  by 
100  percent-his  easting  by  ne...y  50  peit^t.  and  plot  a 
course  on  a  map  for  the  world  to  see  that  leads  to  an  impowible 
and  a  false  location.  No  man,  I  am  bound  to  «ay.  of  such 
Ignorance,  would  ever  venture  far  out  of  sight  of  land 

It  would  be  absurd  and  ridiculous  to  cUim  that  these 
figures  are  made  by  a  navigator  honestly  attempting  to  find  his 

V'^^^'  ^iJ^''^  '"  ™"'"  '^^-^  «>^W  these  eZ"c 
figures  be  ascnbed  to  the  abberations  of  an  insane  person. 
They  have  no  coherence  with  any  known  purpose,  that  a  sincere 
navigator  could  have  on  the  ocean.     They  do  not  correctly 

T^ul  "%  t'"?:  f"**"^  "''  longitude,  and  why  they  are 
published,  will  I  thmk  puzzle  anyone  to  explain. 

Had  Peaiy  given  altitudes,  or  shown  computation,  some 
clue  to  conjecture  would  exist,  but  as  they   are  now  publi- 
hed  Jiere  is  neither  sense  nor  reason  to  any  of  the  figures  given. 
The  only  plausible  explanation  that  occurs  to  me.  is  that 
Featy  simultaneously  attempted  to  write  two  stories  in  advance 
rf  the  occurrences;  to  decide  when  they  wer.  unished.  which 
of  the  two  taken  as  a  whole,  would  best  suit  the  circumstances 
and  tonc^  tions  after  he  had  encountered  them.      One  of  these 
stones  to  be  "The  Discovery  of  the   North   PoU."    The  other 
to  be     Nearest  the  Pole."      Finding  that  he  could  not.  as  will 
be  shown,  make  aU  the  connections  satisfactorily  from  the 
!to)t  ^J^^.^'^^^t^^^^^  °«  th»  1906  voyage,  for  a  pkusible 
story  of  the    Ducovery  of  the   Pole,"  he  decided  to  limit  the 
pr^nt  book  to  87-  6'  or  to  "Nearest  the  PoU,"  and  await  its 
reception  by  the  public.     But  in  the  confusion  of  compikUon 
he  got  the  pages  hopelessly  mixed.    Anyway  it  is  a  senseless, 
shameful  compJation  as  it  is.  and  camiot  contam  a  vestige  of 
truth.    An  attentive  reader  of  these  7H  man^hes  must  certainly 
see  before  he  has  reached  the  last  marches  that  there  is  an 
ulterior  purpose  behind  the  descriptions. 

But  in  regard  to  longitude,  it  may  be  said  that  the  story 
repeatedly  says  (as  it  does  on  page  133)  that  the  drift  of  the  ice 


Did  Peary  Beoek  87*  6'  in  19069 


979 


was  always  more  t'.  the  east  on  the  north  side  of  the  open  water 
spaces,  indicatinj?  that  the  current  may  have  been  founc^ 
stronger  as  he  advanced  north,  which  may  have  misled  him  into 
error.  This  condition  might  have  been  true,  but  if  true,  it 
would.not  help  him  out  of  the  diflSculty.  We  may  admit  every 
condition  that  imagination  can  suggest,  that  might  have  misled 
Peary  as  to  the  drift.  It  will,  nevertheless,  be  proven  by 
positive  evidence,  that  longitude  50  degrees  west,  is  an  imagi- 
nary and  false  location. 

Suppose  for  this  purpose  that  the  ice  between  Storm  Camp 
and  87"  6'    to  have   been  one  solid    mass;   perfectly    level, 
quiet  and  smooth;  and  that  all  other  conditions  were  such  as  by 
themselves  alone  considered,  would  naturally  have  led  Peaiy 
to  believe  there  was  no  drift.      The  same  as  one  looking  at  the 
ground  alone  can  see  no  evidence  that  the  earth  is  revolving  to 
the  east  and  that  so  believing,   he  made  no  attempt  to  counter- 
act any  drift  but  shaped  his  course  due  north,  leaving  Storm 
Camp  due  south  behind  him.    Storm  Camp  would  have,  in  such 
a  case,  continued  to  have  been  directly  south  of  him  even  had 
he  in  fact  reached  87"  6'  or  any  other  distance  north.    But  if 
on  his  arrival  at  this  lorthem  point  he  had  learned  by  hia 
observations  that  he  haw  drifted  48.5  miles  to  the  east,  and  wa« 
then  in  longitude  50,  he  would  surely  have  fortified  himself  on 
his  return,  to  prevent  drifting  mto  the  AUantic.    But  whether 
he  would  or  not,  he  has  said  that  he  not  only  returned  at  the 
same  speed  as  on  the  outward  journey,  but  that  he  "stumbled 
into  an  igloo  built  on  the  outward  journey,  at  the  end  of  every 
march,"  until  he  reached  the  Storm  Camp  igloo. 

This  makes  clear  the  immaterialily  of  the  assumpti<m  we 
have  nuide.  These  igloos  would  have  drifted  with  the  ice,  the 
same  as  Peaiy  would  have  drifted,  and  if  Storm  Camp  had  been 
48.6  miles  west  of  the  50th  meridian  when  he  started  north  from 
it,  it  wouM  have  been  on  his  arrival  to  it,  on  his  return  south, 
48.5  miles  to  the  east  of  the  50th  meridian  at  Q,  and  the  direction 
of  his  travel  to  that  igloo  from  87»  6',  had  he  continued  it  in 
Ignorance  of  the  drift,  wouW  have  taken  him  nearly  to  the  east 


^'     if 


S80 


Hat  th$  North  Pole  Bttn  DiteoMrtd 


Vfe- 


coMt  of  Greenland.  Therefore,  Peary's  plotting  that  ihows  his 
return  route  on  the  50th  meridian  and  saying  that  he  found  all 
the  igloos  on  that  meridian,  proves  conclusively  its  falsity  by 
his  own  testimony  and  the  falsity  of  the  northern  camp  being  on 
that  meridian.  Had  he  said  that  he  used  sledges  that  had  only 
one  end  to  them,  it  would  have  been  no  more  absurd. 

But  even  if  the  ice  had  been  in  the  condition  which  I  have 
assumed  for  the  purpose  of  illustration,  with  no  perceptible 
movement,  nevertheless,  Peary  himself  would  have  Imown  from 
his  observations  taken  the  day  btjore  atarting  north,  that  U  vhu 
moving  east,  although  this  movement  may  not  have  been  per- 
ceptible to  the  eye,  and  he  would  have  known  from  that  observa- 
tion and  the  previous  observation  on  the  30th  that  it  was  moving 
at  a  rate  of  4.6  miles  per  day.  Knowing  this,  he  certainly 
would  have  done  one  of  two  things. 

First:  He  would  have  accepted  this  positive  informati<»i 
that  the  ice  was  drifting  regardless  of  appearances  and  he  would 
have  tried  to  counteract  its  effect  by  steering  to  the  west  ol 
north,  or  else, 

Second:  He  would  have  taken  daily  observations  for  the 
longitude  (for  he  had  the  sim)  and  found  out  whether  it  was 
tud/mgotnoi. 

Therefore,  had  he  steered  west  of  north  to  coimteract  the 
drift  under  the  guidance  of  either  of  these  advices,  Storm  Camp 
would  not  have  been  south  of  him  on  his  arrival  at  87*  6',  but 
it  would  have  been  as  far  to  the  east  of  the  50th  meridian  as  he 
had  worked  west  of  his  true  course  (due  north);  and  on  his 
return  to  Storm  Camp  7^  days  later,  it  would  have  been  to  the 
east  of  88°  20',  a  distance  equal  to  dovbU  the  distance  of  his 
westerly  working.  So  much  for  the  alleged  location  on  the 
50th  mmdian. 

Having  now  reached  in  this  review,  the  northern  end  of  the 

journey,  I  wrll  pause  in  my  argument,  before  tracing  the  return, 

and  by  way  of  parenthesis  conunent  on  Peary's  remark  that: 

"I  thanked  God  with  as  good  a  grace  as  possible,   though 


t 

.1 


Did  Peary  Rtaeh  87'  6'  in  1906? 


881 


I  felt  that  the  mere  beating  the  record  was  but  an  empty  bauble 
compared  with  the  splendid  jewel  on  which  I  had  set  my  heart 
for  years  and  for  which  I  had  almost  literally  been  strainins  my 
life  out."  "    ' 

I  think  it  to  be  in  line  with  my  purpose,  to  show  that  this 
remark  is  pure  hypocrisy,  and  under  the  peculiar  circumstances, 
borders  on  blasphemy;  and  to  also  show  that  these  sentunents 
are  inserted  in  the  wrong  pUce  even  in  a  story  to  have  the 
appearance  of  veracity.  If  Peary  had  any  intention  on  this 
voyage  of  going  to  the  North  Pole  (I  am  sure  he  did  not)  or  if  he 
had  at  any  time  on  the  voyage,  an  occasicm  for  disappomtment 
so  severe  upon  his  system  as  to  throw  him  into  a  fit  of  blues, 
that  time  was  during  the  week  when  the  big  storm  was  raging, 
ending  on  the  ISth.  He  realized  durmg  that  week  that  the 
alleged  North  Pole  expedition  of  1906  was  simply  fragmentaiy 
wreckage  scattoed  broadcast  over  the  Arctic  Sea.  His  own 
sledges  were  empty;  his  party  hungry  with  no  hope  of  succor, 
and  nearly  100  miles  from  land.  There  was  apparently  nothing 
left  for  him  and  his  party  to  hope  for,  but  to  get  to  land  as 
quickly  as  possible,  and  save  their  lives. 

If  there  can  be  anything  m  the  stuff  that  goes  to  make  up 
an  Arctic  expbrer,  that  permits  him  to  submit  to  the  blues, 
this  was  the  time  and  the  place  for  that  stuff  to  show  itself.  It 
was  the  only  place  in  the  story  when  he  could  have  been  actually 
disappointed.  It  was  at  that  place  and  at  that  time  if  ever  that 
he  was  obliged  to  abandon  "that  splendid  jewel."  It  is  the 
place  where  he  has  himself  unconsciously  acknowledged  this 
disappointment  and  this  abandonment  by  limiting  his  future 
efforts  from  the  16th  to  "five  more  marches  north."  It  was 
then,  and  only  then,  that  he  gave  up  that  "splendid  jewel." 
It  is  inconsistent  and  must  be  hypocrisy  to  pretend  that  it 
happened  at  the  end  of  those  marches,  marches  that  weie 
never  made.  Had  he  actually  made  those  seven  and  one  half 
marches,  and  had  he  reached  87'  6',  after  this  disi^pointment 
at  Storm  Camp,  it  would  have  been  a  genuine  triumph.  And 
any  man  with  human  aspirations  and  sentiments  would  have  so 


{ 


I 

i  M 
I 


'yh 


■-»v. 


*. 


t'  i 


282 


H<u  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


regarded  it.  It  would  have  been  a  triumph  in  a  feat  in  most  of 
its  particulars,  unparalleled  and  unapproached  in  the  annals  of 
Arctic  exploration.  He  would  in  that  success  have  had  the 
exceptional  honor  of  emplanting  his  {pzl.  -.'j'-i  rotting  his  eyes, 
upon  a  more  northern  point  on  the  ear ;iri  surface  tiiiv  i  had  ever 
before  been  achieved  since  Creation's  loru,  by  ai'y  l.ving  thing. 
That  was  not  the  natural  place,  nor  'h"  natural  time  for  an 
explorer  to  give  way  to  the  blues. 

I  invite  the  candid  opinion  of  students  of  human  nature  as 
to  what  these  expressions  of  Petry  obviously  mean.  We 
cannot  read  another's  mind — we  cannot  penetrate  the  secret 
of  another's  heart.  We  can  only  form  opinions  from  circimi- 
stances  and  are  very  liable  to  err.  But  in  a  search  for  truth  is  it 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  this  intrepid  explorer  at  this  point, 
would  have  been  so  grievously  disappointed,  so  mortified,  so 
saddened  in  his  heart,  that  he  would  surrender  like  a  frail 
woman  and  give  way  on  that  Arctic  ice  to  despondency  and  grief? 

It  is  my  opinion,  that  when  he  seated  himself  to  pen  this 
part  of  his  story,  he  saw  before  him  in  his  sub-conscious  mind, 
the  features  of  Nansen  and  of  Cagni,  and  these  words  which  I 
have  quoted  were  written  to  hide  the  blushes  of  a  guilty  soul. 

To  proceed  with  the  outline.  He  writes  that  he  did  not 
make  camp  at  87°  6'.  After  taking  the  observations,  he  pro- 
ceeded south,  camping  that  night  (the  21st)  in  the  igloo  from 
which  he  started  north  in  the  morning;  that  he  then  proceeded 
on  south  to  Storm  Camp,  making  the  same  time  on  the  return 
as  on  the  outward  march  "stumbling  into  an  igloo  every  night. " 
(This  as  I  have  shown  proves  that  all  of  the  7)^  days  of  the  al- 
leged outward  trip  were  to  be  considered  marching  days. 
Because  if  he  had  made  the  same  time  returning,  and  lost  no 
time  returning,  he  must  have  also  marched  7^^  days  going 
north.) 

He  states  that  on  his  return  he  remained  24  hours  at  Storm 
Camp,  which  is  the  only  lost  time  that  he  reports  on  the  whole 
allied  journey  north  from  Storm  Camp  to  87°  6',  and  south  to 


Did  Peary  Reach  87"  6'  in  1906? 


283 


land.  We  have  now  reviewed  the  alleged  round  trip  from  Storm 
Camp  north  and  back  to  Storm  Camp.  But  I  have  been  assum- 
ing the  distances  north  and  south  to  have  been  104  miles  as 
shown  by  the  alleged  observations  taken  at  the  terminals  of  the 
alleged  journey  from  H  to  J.  These  observations  would  de- 
termine the  aggregate  distance  but  they  would  not  indicate  the 
length  of  the  separate  marches.  I  have  therefore  divided  the 
distance  in  plotting  Diagram  17  from  H  to  J  into  7^  spaces, 
to  correspond  with  the  alleged  number  of  marches,  which  makes 
each  full  march  only  13.8  miles  and  the  last  J^  march  only  6.9 
miles. 

Now  then,  how  could  Peary  have  "stumbled  into  an  igloo 
every  night  on  his  return,  traveling  only  between  87*  6'  and 
85"  12'  and  taken  7j^  days  to  return,  if  these  igloos  were  30 
miles  apart  reaching  from  latitude  85"  12'  to  89° — H  to  J?  It 
seems  like  superogation  to  devote  so  much  space,  in  considera- 
tion of  a  subject  that  bears  such  clear  and  unmistakable  in- 
ternal evidence  that  every  sentence  is  false.     But  I  will  be  brief. 

From  the  alleged  Storm  Camp,  he  writes  (page  142)  that 
he  made  a 


"bee  line  for  the  nearest  point  on  the 
Greenland  Coast." 


and  reached  Cape  Newmeyer  in  ten  moi-e  marches.  And  he 
also  says  (page  148)  that  just  before  reaching  land,  he  crossed 
the  freshly  made  tracks  of  Clark  "heading  east." 


"  /  thought  it  might  be  Marvin  and  his  party. " 

(He  says  that  Clark  was  found  to  be  a  few  miles  east.  He  joined 
Peary  the  next  day) .  Peary's  plot  indicates  that  he  kept  on  the 
50th  meridian  straight  south  from  87°  6'  to  Storm  Camp,  and 
oil  the  48th  straight  south  from  Storm  Camp  to  Newmeyer. 

This  alleged  trip  from  Storm  Camp  to  land  is  devoid  of  any 
descriptions  of  special  incidents,  and  it  is  very  briefly  stated 


m 

if 

Irl 


I' 


284 


Em  ihs  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


in  the  book.    But  the  referen  es  therein  to  natural  facts  show, 
how  loosely  even  this  brief  statement  is  written. 

I  will  try  to  shed  light  on  this. 

First:  It  is  more  difficult  in  navigation  to  keep  on  a 
merid  .Ji,  between  observations,  when  '  '>ing  south,  than  it  is 
in  going  north,  when  traveling  in  the  northern  hemisphere. 
But  here  is  the  allegation  of  a  navigator,  who,  when  he  had 
observations  to  guide  him  and  compass  variation,  could  not 
make  even  7  marches,  in  two  separate  attempts  when  going 
north, — one  on  the  land  ice,  and  one  on  the  central  pack, 
without  crossing  ten  meridians  of  longitude  in  ^ch  attempt. 
Yet  claims  that  he  returned  south,  (having  a  more  serious 
problem,  with  no  observations  to  guide  hun),  and  made  17j/^ 
marches,  keeping  all  the  way  directly  on  his  chosen  meridian, 
without  drifting  out  of  his  course,  and  landed  exactly  at  the 
desired  point. 

Second:  He  also  states  (page  142)  that  he  made  a  "bee 
line"  from  Storm  Camp  "to  the  nearest  point  of  the  Greenland 
Coast." 

He  evidently  forgot  himself  in  this  statement;  forgot  he 
was  writmg  fiction;  forgot  he  was  imagining  himself  to  be  in  a 
false  location,  even  m  this  simple  matter.  Cape  Newmeyer 
would  not  have  been  the  nearest  point.  Cape  Washington 
would  have  been  20  miles  nearer;  and  20  miles,  out  of  132,  to 
men  alleged  to  have  been  starving,  eating  their  fatigued  dogs 
in  order  to  keep  alive  to  reach  land  and  game,  would  have  been 
seriously  considered.  But  the  fact  that  he  represents  himself  to 
have  been  in  latitude  85°  12'  longitude  50"  (or  48"  at  K)  when  he 
said  he  made  "a  bee  line"  proves  that  he  overlooked  the  other 
fact  that  such  a  statement  did  not  apply  to  that  imaginary 
location;  but  did  apply  to  his  true  locaiion;  to  the  point  from 
which  he  actually  did  start  south  for  land,  which  wiU  yet  be 
shown. 

We  have  now  seen  that  ail  the  lines  of  the  plotting  on 
Peary's  map  are  fictitious  and  that  most  of  them  conflict  with 
the  written  story.    I  will  next  go  to  prove  m  another  way  by 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906t 


t85 


still  better  evidence,  if  better  can  be  possible,  (I  csll  it  better, 
because  based  on  some  known  facts,  instead  of  on  fictitious 
lines  and  false  statements)  that  the  whole  alleged  journey, 
starting  north  from  the  big  lead  and  thence  on  south  to  land,  by 
the  route  plotted  on  Peary's  map  is  a  trumped  up  journey, 
never  made. 

Let  us  see  where  Peary  actually  did  go— or  probably  did 
go,  as  shown  by  reliable  circumstantial  evidence. 

On  April  13  when  the  storm  abated,  Peary  was  at  one  or 
the  other  of  two  places.  He  says  he  was  at  Storm  Camp, 
Latitude  85»  12'  Longitude  61 »  40'  at  H.  The  indications  are 
that  he  was  34  miles  directly  south  of  that  point,  still  detained 
at  the  big  lead  camp,  which  camp  on  that  date  had  drifted  to 
O.  However,  it  makes  but  little  diflf^  nee  in  the  illustration 
I  am  about  to  make,  at  which  of  these  two  camps  we  may  assimie 
him  to  have  been.  It  is  certain  that  he  was  at  one  or  the  other 
camp. 

I  will  go  back  a  few  days.  Clark  (presumably)  had  been 
hourly  and  anxiously  expected  by  Peary,  to  arrive  at  the  big  lead 
camp  at  P  (34  miles  farther  south  than  H)  with  supplies,  on 
April  3,  which  was  the  day  that  Peary  alleges  he  left  it. 

Therefore,  on  that  date  at  least,  as  subsequent  events  will 
show,  Clark  and  Peary  were  undoubtedly  very  near  together— 
perhaps  only  a  few  miles  apart.  Wherever  thqr  each  may  have 
been,  or  however  near  together,  or  however  far  apart  they  were, 
both  were  in  the  same  vicinity,  when  the  storm  struck  3  days 
later,  and  both  were  held  fast  by  the  storm,  drifting  eastward 
together,  until  the  storm  abated  on  the  13th.  These  facts  are 
recorded  and  these  approxmiate  locations  of  the  two  men  are 
rightly  established. 

The  next  mommg,  after  the  storm  (the  14th)  Peary  says 
he  started  out;  and  undoubtedly  Clark  did  the  same.  On 
May  7,  26  days  later,  th^  both  arrived  at  Cape  NeumeyerV. 

What  does  this  simultaneous  arrival  of  these  two  m«i  at 
Newmeyer  on  May  9  mdicate?  It  is  an  exhibit  of  a  phase  of  the 
story,  that  is  at  least  interesting.    It  furnishes  evidence  of  a 


386 


His  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


ir 


I- 


peculiar  situation  that  is  obscured,  if  it  be  not  suppressed,  in 
the  Peaty  narrative.  There  in  only  one  presumption  that  can 
be  entertained  regarding  this  peculiar  situation  in  the  absence 
of  explanation  or  evidence  to  the  contrary,  and  that  presumption 
is  that  these  two  men  traveled  together  or  nearly  together  over 
the  same  route  all  the  way  from  the  big  lead  camp  at  O  to  New- 
meyer  at  L.  If  this  presumption  be  sound,  it  proves  an  alibi 
Tor  Peary.  He  did  not  go  to  87°  6'.  But  this  presumption  is  in 
absolute  conflict  with  the  recital  in  the  narrative.  It  contradicts 
the  very  purport  and  intent  of  the  story.  If  soimd,  it  would 
leave  the  record  of  Nansen  and  of  Cagni  unbroken.  It  would 
be  collateral  and  valuable  corroborative  evidence  to  sup[)ort 
the  evidence  which  has  already  been  furnished  that  Peaiy  did 
not  go  north  from  big  lead  camp  but  south.  Can  any  reader 
shut  his  eyes  in  the  face  of  this  plain  exhibit,  and  blindly  accept 
such  a  monstrous  absurdity  as  the  contradictory  and  grotesque 
statement  that  is  related  in  Peary's  book  as  to  his  travels  be- 
tween April  14  and  May  9? 

But  there  is  one  thing  that  may  yet  be  said;  viz.,  that  this 
simultaneous  arrival  at  Newmeyer,  was  simply  a  coincidence. 
Let  us  see  if  it  were  a  coincidence. 

I  will  present  Clark's  case  first.  His  case  h  clearer  and 
the  facts  regarding  his  movements  are  better  known.  We  know 
that  Clark  did  not  go  either  north,  or  east  of  the  big  lead  camp 
(which  camp  on  April  13  was  on  the  south  edge  of  the  big  lead) 
atO. 

Therefore,  between  the  morning  of  the  14th  of  April  and 
the  evening  of  the  9th  of  May,  (26  days)  Clark  was  somewhere 
enroute  to  Cap>e  Newmeyer.  The  distance  sotUh  from  the  big 
lead  to  Newmeyer  is  the  same  as  the  distance  north  from  Moss 
to  the  big  lead,  viz.,  98  miles.  It  took  20  days  for  the  expedition 
to  make  this  distance  going  north  with  the  assistance  of  pioneer- 
ing parties.  It  took  Clark,  when  returning  alone,  26  days  to 
reach  Newmeyer.  The  days  therefore  and  the  speed  on  these 
two  trips  in  the  case  of  Clark  vouch  for  the  probable  truth  of 
each. 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'6'  in  1906? 


887 


Now  turn  to  Peaiy. 

On  April  14,  the  very  same  day  that  Clark  left  for  the  South 
or  for  land,  Peary,  who  was  near  by,  also  left,  for  somewhere. 
He  arrived  at  Cape  Newmqrer  the  same  day  that  Clark  did 
(Ma^-  9) ;  also  (of  course)  just  26  days  enroute. 

What  is  the  natural  inference  from  these  premises,  m  the 
absence  of  explanation?  There  is  no  explanation  in  Peary's 
book.  Did  Peary  and  Clark  travel  toget>-  t  in  a  "bee  line  to 
the  nearest  point  on  the  Greenland  Coast?"  Newmeyer  was 
"the  nearest  point  on  the  Greenland  Coast"  in  a  bee  line  from 
either  of  these  starting  places  0  or  H.  Or  did  Peary  make  an 
excursion  around,  and  over,  the  fictitious  route  plotted  by  him 
up  north  to  87'  6'  and  down  south  to  Cape  Newmeyer,  a  distance 
in  straight  lines  of  394  miles,  while  Clark  was  making  98  miles; 
and  by  coincidence,  arrive  at  the  same  point  on  the  same  day? 
Let  us  look  into  this  a  little  deeper. 

The  83d  parallel  singularly  passes  through  both  Cape  Moss, 
the  starting  point  north  from  land,  and  Cape  Newmeyer,  the 
landing  point  south  from  sea.  Sheridan,  where  the  ship  was 
lying,  is  sheltered  in  the  bend,  or  bay,  between  these  two 
capes,  about  22  miles  south  of  this  (83d)  parallel. 

We  can  illustrate  Clark's  position  and  travels  quite 
accurately. 

On  April  13,  as  before  shown,  Clark  was  in  the  vicinity  of 
0  almost  directly  north  of  Sheridan;  98  miles  north  of  this  83d 
parallel.  He  wanted,  of  course,  to  get  to  the  ship  at  Sheridan, 
his  destination.  But  he  infinitely  more  must  have  wanted  to 
get  to  land;  to  safety  and  to  game;  to  get  there  in  the  surest, 
quickest,  most  prudent  way.  Such  a  way  for  economy  in 
time,  labor  and  miles  of  travel,  was  to  steer  straight  south  for 
98  miles,  and  let  the  current  do  the  rest.  He  did  this,  and 
landed  at  Cape  Newmeyer,  98  miles  east  of  Sheridan.  His 
southing  and  easting  therefore  were  equal.  If  then,  Clark  was 
at  O  (big  lead)  April  13,  and  at  L  (Newmeyer)  May  9,  the 
line  O  L  undoubtedly  represents  the  route  that  he  took, 
because  it  is  the  natural,  the  most  direct  route,  between  the 


'M 
S 


H 


If 

r 


288 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


It 


two  points,  taking  into  consideration  the  easterly  drif».  New- 
meyer  being  98  miles  east  of  Sheridan  shows  tb^t  the  aggregate 
drift  just  equalled  Clark's  speed  of  travel.  The  drift  at  the 
lead  was  124.S  percent  of  his  march,  (4.6:  8.7)  which  checks 
with  and  vouches  for  the  probable  facts  8.7  average  speed 
enroute  to  land  to  4.6  per  day  drift  at  the  lead  and  presumably 
no  drift  near  the  land. 

To  make  a  more  perfect  comparison  between  the  alleged 
situations  of  Peary  and  Clark  we  will  now  suppose  that  Clark 
instead  of  adopting  the  plan  he  did,  (by  drifting  to  Newmqrer), 
had  determined  to  make  his  Und  fall  directly  south  at  Sheridan 
at  whatever  cost  to  him  in  time,  food  and  strength.    It  is 
obvious  that  he  would  have  needed  to  have  shaped  his  course, 
west  of  aouihweet,  instead  of  south,  and  to  have  traveled  about 
40  miles  weet,  to  overcome  the  drift,  as  well  as  98  miles  south, 
to  reach  the  83d  parallel,  (and  shelter  or  the  land  ice).     Clark 
wisely  adopted  the  plan  first  mentioned;  the  sensible  pUn,  and 
shaped  his  course  south.    Under  the  plan  adopted  he  reached 
land  and  game  in  less  time,  traveling  a  less  number  of  miles  on 
the  ice.    He  then  afterwards  traveled  the  last  98  miles  of  his 
journey  from  Newmeyer  to  Sheridan  at  his  leisure,  on  land, 
instead  of  on  drifting  ice.    Under  the  hypothetical  plan  men- 
tioned, he  would  have  needed  to  have  made  his  40  miles  of 
westing  in  scaling  pressure  ridges,  and  ice  floes,  on  the  drifting 
sea.    An  infinitely  greater  task  as  well  as  a  longer  joumqr. 

Now  let  us  apply  these  identical  rules  to  Peary  in  his 
alleged  position  in  a  similar  illustration. 

On  April  21,  Peary  claims  that  he  was  at  Latitude  87<'  6' 
north,  Longitude  50»  W,  at  J  which  location  is  246  miles  ahnost 
directly  north  of  Cape  Newmeyer.  He  then,  like  Clark,  would 
have  wanted  to  get  to  Sheridan,  his  destination.  But  he  m- 
finitely  more  must  have  wanted  to  get  to  land.  To  safety  and 
to  game.  To  get  there  in  the  surest,  quickest,  most  prudent 
way.  The  most  economical  way  for  him  in  time,  and  miles  of 
travel  (as  it  was  with  Clark)  would  have  been  to  have  steered 
straight  touth  for  246  miles  and  let  the  current  do  tiie  rest 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906? 


289 


But  this  plan  (had  he  traveled  no  faster  than  Clark)  would 
have  landed  him  246  miles  to  the  east  of  Newmeyer,  or  50  miles 
out  into  the  Atlantic.  If  ST-  6'  N— 60»  W  had  been  his  true 
location,  he  would  have  been  in  exactly  the  same  dilemma  as  to 
reiiching  Newmeyer,  which  would  have  been  directly  south  of 
him  that  Clark  waf'  in  as  to  reaching  Sheridan  had  Clark  de- 
termined to  reach  Sheridan,  which  was  directly  south  of  him, 
at  whatever  cost  to  him  in  time,  food  and  strength,  as  before 
explained.  If  Peary  had  no  better  facilities  for  travel  than 
Clark  had  (he  had  no  better,  nor  as  good),  Peary  would  have 
needed  to  have  shaped  his  course  west  of  aovthvoett  instead  of 
south,  in  order  to  have  made  a  k  A  fall  at  Newmeyer,  and  he 
would  have  needed  to  have  traveled  about  106  miles  to  the  toeti  to 
overcome  the  drift  (scaling  pressure  ridges  and  ice  floes),  as 
well  as  246  miles  south  to  reach  Newmeyer;  352  miles  altogether. 
But  he  would  already  have  traveled  104  miles  (if  he  had  started 
as  he  says  he  did  from  Storm  Camp  at  H),  between  April  13 
and  April  21  to  reach  87"  6'  at  J.  This  added  to  352  makes  456 
miles;  and  if  he  had  started  from  the  big  lead  camp  at  O,  on 
April  19,  (which  he  undoubtedly  did)  34  miles  more  must  be 
added,  making  490  miles  that  he  would  have  traveled  during  the 
26  days  between  April  13  and  May  10,  while  Clark  was  traveling 
98  miles  during  the  same  26  days.  This  discrepancy  between 
the  alleged  accomplishments  of  two  men  in  26  days  of  traveling 
is  great  enough  for  incredibility.  Any  other  showing  that 
would  enlarge  this  discrepancy  could  add  nothing  co  its  ab- 
surdity. But  there  are  degrees  in  the  magnitude  of  lies  (we 
are  evidently  now  dealing  almost  wholly  with  lies),  the  same 
as  there  are  degrees  in  the  heinousness  of  crimes.  Peary  has 
more  definitely,  positively  and  explicitly  claimed  in  the  pages 
of  his  narrative  to  have  traveled  225  miles  north  of  Storm 
Camp,  than  the  implied,  but  unexpressed  claim  of  104  miles, 
which  the  alleged  observations  indicate.  The  fact  that  the 
false  statements  in  the  narrative  about  the  lengths  of  the  daily 
marches  are  more  graphically  exposed  l^  the  line  HI  should  not 


i% 


* 


290 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcocend 


tW 


eliminate  the  claim  from  consideration  in  any  just  comparison 
because  of  its  absurdity. 

Therefore,  if  we  should  add  to  this  490  miles  (to  get  at  the 
true  situation)  121  miles  more  to  mclude  the  remainder  of  the 
senseless,  shameless  daily  record  of  225  miles,  it  would  make 
611  miles  that  Peary  is  claiming  to  have  actually  traveled  m  the 
same  number  of  days  and  the  same  days  that  Clark  traveled 
98  miles.  It  woiUd  have  been  a  remarkable  coincidence  if 
Peary  had  in  these  circumstances  arrived  at  the  same  pomt  on 
the  same  day  as  Clark. 

But  was  it  or  could  it  have  been  coincidence? 
Even  if  it  were  conceded  that  Clark  and  Peary  had  left  the 
same  point  together  on  the  same  day  and  had  traveled  as  one 
organization,  and  used  every  endeavor  to  have  kept  together 
all  the  way,  it  is  doubtful,  under  the  circumstances,  if  they 
could  have  kept  together  all  the  time.    Such  a  thing  is  not 
recorded  in  any  of  Peary's  travels  with  his  supporting  parties  on 
either  of  his  expeditions.    One  needs  only  to  read  Borup's 
description  of  the  difficulties  of  such  an  undertaking  to  under- 
stand the  problem  it  involves,  where  there  are  open  leads  and 
ridges  to  scale.    But  of  course  by  taking  sufficient  time  each 
helping  the  other  it  would  be  poa-ible  for  the  two  parties  to 
have  started  together  and  to  have  landed  together.    But 
suppose  they  had  started  out  of  sight  of  each  other  and  kept  out 
of  sight  of  each  other,  it  would  be  alu  )st  a  miracle  if  they  both 
could  have  crossed  98  miles  of  floating  cakes  of  ice  drifting 
constantly  to  the  east,  and  not  only  reached  land  together,  but 
the  same  spot  on  the  hmd.    It  would  have  been  considered  a 
remarkable  phenomenon,  difficult  to  believe,  without  all  the 
circumstances  bemg  satisfactorily  explained.    But  such   an 
illustration  only  proves,  even  if  it  be  considered  possible,  the 
impossibility  of  the  confficting  claims  in  Peary's  book. 

We  now  come  to  the  case  as  it  is  presented  in  the  stoiy. 
We  have  the  various  alleged  situations  of  these  two  men  from 
beginning  to  end  of  their  journeys  to  land  clearly  before  us. 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906? 


991 


We  may  review  these  journeys  in  a  different  way  and  my 
analysis  so  far  will  be  fomid  to  check. 

Clark  and  Peary  both  actually  started  for  land  the  same 
day.  Both  reached  the  same  place  on  the  land  the  same  day. 
But  it  is  alleged  that  they  took  altogether  different  routes. 

Clark  is  known  to  have  trttceled  on  his  route,  only  98  miles 
in  the  26  days.  He  had  only  one  sledge  and  two  eskimos,  and 
would  have  had  less  than  one  fifth  the  distance  to  go  that  Peary 
would  have  had  on  his  alleged  route.  Peary's  claim,  however, 
(eliminating  the  121  miles)  is  in  substance  that  he  traveled  in 
those  26  days  over  5  times  as  far  as  Clark  traveled.  Peary  had 
on  his  journey  four  times  as  large  a  party.  He  was  an  older 
man.  The  poorest  sledge,  dog,  or  man,  fixed  the  pace.  It 
would  seem  that  if  ice  conditions  were  equal  (and  they  must 
have  been  equal  over  the  last  98  miles  of  the  distance),  Clark 
would  have  made  the  greater  speed. 

If  we  compare  Peary  with  himself,  the  result  is  practically 
the  same.  It  took  him  in  his  story  44 ^/^  days  to  reach  87*  6'; 
but  only  18J^  days  to  return  over  the  same  distance.  Eliminat- 
ing from  this  comparison  the  now  known  fictitious  marches  and 
confining  it  to  the  territory  south  of  the  big  lead  where  real 
marches  by  himself  and  Clark  were  aduaXLy  made,  we  find  the 
result  to  be  still  practically  the  same. 

In  Peary's  journey  north  from  land  to  the  big  lead,  the 
going  was  excellent;  the  weather  fine;  men  and  dogs  were  fresh 
and  fully  fed;  sledges  were  lightly  loaded;  supporting  parties 
pioneered  the  way  and  built  the  igkx)s;  supporting  parties 
brought  up  supplies  from  the  rear;  "Things  are  too  favorable" 
says  Peary  (on  page  106)  "  to  last. "  Under  these  phenomenally 
favorable  circumstances  and  conditions,  he  made  this  distance 
going  north  in  eighteen  marches.  On  the  return  over  this 
identical  distance,  or  from  the  big  lead,  (or  from  the  "Scar" 
where  he  said  it  closed)  the  circumstances  and  conditions  were 
at  least,  not  as  faoorable.  He  was  alone  without  support.  He 
relates  that  his  dogs  had  long  before  become  skeletons,  many 
unable  to  proceed.    That  himself  and  party  were  phyricallgr 


I -III 


m\ 


S9f 


ii'  : 


Hot  the  North  P6UBt9nDueoe0nd 


r 
III 


exhausted,  and  all  on  short  rations.  Yet  notwithstandmg  this 
acknowledged  handicap  in  comparison  with  conditions  on  his 
own  ovtward  march,  he  claims  that  he  reached  land  at  Cape 
Newmeyer  over  the  identical  distence  in  ae  t  marches;  18 
north,  as  against  7  south,  with  the  odda  in  condUiotu  aU  in 
favor  of  the  18.  And  these  7  marches  covered  the  same  distance 
over  practically  the  same  ice  as  did  CUrk's  26. 

The  days,  the  speed,  the  distance,  the  drift,  the  "  bee  line, " 
the  condiUons,  the  comparisons  between  Peary  when  traveling 
north  with  witnesses,  with  Peary  traveling  south  alone;  between 
Clark  and  Peary,  in  the  same  number  of  days;  all  combine  to 
indicate  that  Peary  started  south  on  April  14  and  not  north; 
that  he  must  have  traveled  over  the  same  line,  OE,  that  CUrk 
traveled.  Like  Clark,  he  unavoidably  was  carried  by  the  drift 
to  Cape  Newmeyer. 

It  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  paUiate,  or  disguise  this  matter, 
it  has  eveiy  mark  of  fraud  and  imposition  stamped  upon  the 
face  of  It.  In  aU  researches  of  this  kind,  the  best  evidence 
that  can  be  produced,  is  the  internal  evidence  the  thing  carries 
with  Itself,  and  the  evidence  of  circumstances  that  unites  with 
It,  both  of  which  in  this  case  are  not  difficult  to  be  discovered. 
If  Peary  went  to  87»  6'.  then  the  mind  of  man  cannot  penetrate. 
The  divme  gift  of  reason  only  confuses;  logic  perverts;  and  eyes 
are  not  made  to  see. 

We  win  now  continue  the  outline  to  the  ship. 

From  Newmcy  r  his  party  accompanied  by  Clark  marched 
aiong  the  coast  to  the  ship  at  Sheridan,  arriving  about  June  6 
(three  months  after  leaving  Moss).  He  gives  no  date  of  his 
arrival  at  Newmeyer.  None  of  his  arrival  at  the  ship.  No 
dates  are  given  after  April  aist,  the  alleged  date  of  arrival  at 
87»  6 .  But  these  omissions  conceal  nothing  of  importance 
1  hey  can  be  approximately  calculated,  but  they  are  immaterial 
at  this  time. 

On  page  168  he  gives  the  news  which  he  says  he  heard  on 
his  arrival  at  the  ship. 


Did  Peary  Raaeh  87'  6*  in  1906f 


998 


111 


"1  )(>mied  that  IkCarvin  and  Rjran  and  some  EddnKM  had 
left  for  the  Greenland  Coast  in  learch  of  Clark,  and  that  Captain 
Bartlett  and  Dr.  Wolf  were  still  paging  away  at  the  wcMrk 
north  of  Heckla.  I  sent  a  messenger  to  recall  Marvin  and 
another  with  a  letter  to  Heckla  to  reach  Captain  Bartlett  as 
soon  as  he  arrived." 

It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  utter  unreliability 
of  this  so-caller]  narrative  ia  aUit$  parta,  even  where  the  truth 
would  have  answered  just  as  well,  that  I  review  this  amasing 
but  otherwise  unimportanc  statement. 

Neither  Biarvin  nor  Dr.  Wolf  went  to  the  big  lead.  It  is 
therefore  but  natural  as  a  nmtter  of  fact  that  Manrn  may  have 
reached  Sheridan  ahead  of  Peary.  But  if  he  did,  then  on  w  jat 
theory  could  Peary  have  been  expecting  Marvin  to  arrive  at 
Storm  Camp  <hi  April  5?  And  why  should  he  have  thought 
that  Clark's  sledge  tracks,  which  he  r  lid  (page  148)  he  saw  on 
his  arrival  at  Newmqrer  "might  be  Marvin't  and  his  party?" 
Why  was  he  not  astonished,  as  I  think  the  reader  must  be,  to 
find  that  Marvin  had  reached  Sheridan  ahead  of  him,  and 
gone  on  east  to  Greenland? 

Take  Ryan. 

Let  us  assume,  however,  for  purposes  of  illustration  <nily, 
that  Marvin  pid  Ryan  actually  did  reach  Sheridan 
ahead  of  Peary;  and  that  they  had  in  fact  started  off  for  the 
Greenland  Coast  in  search  of  Clark,  and  not  for  Peary,  the 
commander  of  the  expedition'  Ryan  knew, if  he  had  made 
that  visit  at  Peary's  camp  on  A^  ^il  2,that  Peary  was  the  farthest 
away  to  the  east  of  anyone  of  the  expeditum  except  himself, 
and  that  Peary  was  the  one  among  them  all  in  most  danger, 
and  the  one  most  likdy  to  be  in  nexl  of  asnstance.  Why 
would  not  Ryan  and  Marvin  have  Y  jen  searching  for  Peaiy,  if 
searching  for  anyone? 

Let  us  take  the  cases  of  Ryan  and  Claric  in  another  way  and 
see  how  the  straws  lean. 

Ryan  is  said  to  have  reached  Peary's  camp  at  the  big  lead 
at  9  p.  m.  April  ft,  and  was  immediatdy  sent  "right  back"  by 


h 

» 


)  It 


■7  -- 


294 


Rat  0,0  North  Pole  Been  I>ieeovered 


^ 


I*  ^ 


lyi    (Th..  wa.  MX  day.  after  Bartlett  and  Clark  had  been 
■ent  bark).    Ryan   therefore.  nece«arily  would  have  been  by 

•ulerable  d«t«.ce  to  the  east  of  both  Bartlett  and  Clark  and  iu.t 

Jhe  6thT  "^  ''''*"  '^'  "*"""  ""^"^  '^  '^*^'  '*^'^°" 

./♦  "^^''f'"^  ^'"'^  '^'^  P^a'y  who  turned  Kuth  immediately 
^ter  the  storm.  a«  we  have  shown,  were  carried  by  the  drift  to 
Newmeyer.  why  was  not  Ryan  who  was  to  the  east  of  CUrk  if 
not  of  Pean^  carried  still  farther  to  the  east  than  Neumeyer? 
Haw  on  thu  earth  could  he  have  reached  Sheridan  aheld  of 
Clark  or  Peary?    Did  he  fly? 

th.  L^%^^  •ctual  situations  as  to  Bartlett  and  CUrk  as  to 
the  possibihty  of  either  of  them  bringing  up  supplies  to  Pea-y 
They  were  the  only  two  of  Pr ,,-,•«  wh^te  supporter,  who 
went  mth  the  expedUion  as  far  north  as  the  big  lead.    The*  i    . 
men  were  ordered  back  for  supplies  the  next  morning  (the  «7ti.; 
Clark  (one  of  these  two  men)  was  next  seen  at  Ne^eyer  Jv^r 
«00  mdes  to  the  east  of  the  point  where  he  was  orde^Tb^^k' 
is  It  not  strange,  without  some  explanation,  that  Clark  riiould 
have  been  found  so  far  to  the  east,  and  that  Bartletthis  Z. 
panion.  should  be  fomid  "pegging  away  at  Heckk"  eofar  to  the 
^et    providmg   both  actuaUy  went  south  together  on  J^ 
87Jor  the  same  purpose,  riz..  to  bring  up  suppUes  to  Peaiy's 

thanks  llrl^r'^  "^  ^  "^°"  ""'^  ™^^«  «'  ^^- 
I  am  sure  that  it  will  be  interesting  at  this  pUce.  if  I  now 

L  rdh  ^\^!*r"" "  "^'^  "^  ^^  -» -d  the  c^; 

The  nTh  K,  '^-  ''  f  "^^^^y  °'^«^^-  it  ^  indicate 
the  probable  motive  for  Peaiy's  astonishing  stat^t  above 
quoted  on  hu.  arr  val  at  the  ship  and  lay  bare'by  p„x>f.  t^iZ 

th^Jfl    »•  ""  Z*"^  ""^'  °''  *  ^^^'  description  is. 

dt^l  ,T  V  T^^*^  «t«^.  f~m  which  we  Ly  tak^ 
departures  and  make  comparatively  reliable  calcuktions.    They 


Did  Peari'  Reach  87*  6'  in  19069 


4JI 


are  the  two  caches  left  on  the  ice,  and  the  camp  at  the  big  lead, 
also  on  the  ice.  These  three  sea  marks  were  all  established  on 
the  northern  inarch,  from  Moss  to  the  lead.  They  are  shown 
on  the  plotting  (Diag.  17)  as  L,  D,  and  E.  It  will  be  advanta- 
geous to  the  reader  to  first  understand  the  relative  positions  of 
these  three  places  with  respect  to  the  dii!er«nt  parties,  and  the 
changmg  effect  on  those  relations  by  the  ocean  current.  We 
cannot  with  impunity  ignore  current  m  calculations  of  location 
on  the  sea. 

These  three  locations  were  established  m  the  followmg 
chronological  order,  (assuming  Diagram  17  to  be  a  true  plotting 
of  the  route,  which  it  is  unpossible  to  know,  as  will  be  later 
indicated.    But  it  is  sufficiently  correct  for  present  purposes.) 

Cache  No.  1  was  established  March  11  on  Longitude  66* 
SC  W  at  B. 

Cache  No.  «  was  established  March  22  on  Longitude  70* 
00'  W  at  D. 

Big  ]>ad  Camp  established  March  28  on  Lonintude  77* 
32'WatE. 

The  camp,  therefore,  was  farthest  west.  Had  all  these  sea 
marks  remained  stationary  as  established,  the  distance  between 
the  camp  and  Cache  No.  2,  (the  nearest  cache)  would  have 
been  5%  miles.  But  between  the  22nd  and  the  26th  (the  dates 
on  vhich  these  two  sea  marks  were  established)  the  cache 
drifted  eastward  4.6  miles  per  day,  mcreasing  the  distance  in 
that  time  between  the  two  place?  18.4  miles.  Hence  on  the 
26th,  when  the  camp  was  established,  they  were  70.4  miles 
apart  (52  r'  «  18.4),  the  cache  being  at  M.  Thenceforward 
until  April  3  both  camp  and  Cache  No.  2  drifted  eastward 
togetJier,  presumably  at  the  same  speed,  and  therefore  kept 
the  same  distance  apart. 

On  April  8,  Peary  alleges  that  he  left  this  Big  Lead  Camp 
and  made  S  marches,  (34  miles  presumably)  directfy  north  to 
'  Storm  Camp, "  G,  arriving  on  the  evenmg  of  the  3th.    There- 
fore Cache  No.  2  again  drifted  eastwpM  during  these  8  days  18.8 
miles  more,  making  the  distance  (east  and  west)  between  Peary's 


•n 


i-ti 


»■'';«»  MtJ^Jl 


M. 


Lii*, 


i!^  ;.t' 


r- 1- 


:h^ 


i 


i7<M  <Ae  iVortA  Pole  Been  Di- covered 


"Stonn  Camp"  and  Cache  No.  2,  84.2  miles  (70.4  plus  13.8) 
and  the  distance  north  and  south,  as  shown  on  Diagram  17, 
would  have  been  approximately  44  miles  at  N.  So  much  for 
the  relative  positions  of  Cache  No.  2  and  of  Peary  at  his  last 
camp  (Storm  Camp). 

Cache  No.  1  on  this  latter  date,  (April  5)  had  been  drifting 
eleven  days  more  than  had  Cache  No.  2,    because   it   was 
established  11  days  earlier.    Therefore,  Cache  No.  1  was  50.6 
miles  east  of  Cache  No.  2,  and  it  was  134  miles  east,  and  about 
90  miles  south  of  Peary  at  his  last  camp  at  R.    This  gives  the 
relative  positions  of  both  caches,  and  of  Pea^y  at  the  last  camp. 
I  now  come  to  the  facilities,  and  the  possibilities  which 
those  facilities  gave  for  getting  supplies   from  either  of  these 
caches  to  Peary  at  this  last  camp.      Peary  pretends  that  he 
was  expecting  supplies  to  arrive  from  those  caches  on  April  S 
at  F  and  on  April  5  at  G.     But  we  will  see  after  establishing  one 
more  fact  if  there  can  be  any  sincerity  in  these  expectations. 
Peary's  speed  from  Moss  to  the  big  lead,  and  Clark's  speed 
from  the  big  lead  to  Newmeyer,  the  only  two  rates  of  speed 
positively  known,  both  the  same  distance  north  and  south,  show 
by  Peary's  own  record,  that  average  travel  with  loaded  sledges 
north  and  south,  barely  equalled  in  miles,  the  easterly  drift  of 
the  ice,  as  this  drift  is  shown  by  the  observations.     We  may, 
therefore,  for  this  purpose  call  them  exactly  equal.    That  is 
to  say  the  drift  east  was  100  percent  of  an  average  march  either 
north  or  south.    Hence,  it  would  seem  that  if  anyone  of  these 
sledging  parties  had  attempted  to  go  west  with  loaded  sledges 
on  the  driftmg  pack  ice,  he  would  only  on  the  average  have 
stenmied  the  current  from  day  to  day  or  held  his  own  againstit, 
without  making  any  (appreciable)  progress  west. 

With  these  premises  before  us,  we  may  draw  some  in- 
telligent conclusions  as  to  possibilities,  to  say  nothmg  of  alleged 
hopes  of  getting  supplies  to  Peary's  camp  at  G  or  F  from  either 
of  these  caches. 

Cache  No.  2  as  had  been  shown  was  the  nearest  cache  to 
Peary.    It  was  on  April  5,  about  44  miles  south,  and  84.2 


Did  Peary  Reach  87"  6'  in  1906f 


9»r 


miles  east  of  his  own  camp,  Down  Stream  at  N.  Cache  No.  1 
was  about  90  miles  south,  and  134  miles  east — also,  Doton 
Stream  at  R.  It  must  therefore  be  clear  to  the  reader  that  the 
day  after  the  expedition  left  either  of  these  caches  behind,  that 
cache  was  gone  from  that  expedition  forever.  No  one,  there- 
fore, ever  brought  any  supplies  to  Peary  from  either  of  them. 
No  one  could  have  done  so.  It  has  not  been  said  that  anyone 
did.     It  has  only  been  said  that  supplies  were  expected. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  further  unfold  the  facts.  Let  us  now 
remove  the  mask,  brush  aside  the  pretensions,  and  state  the 
truth  about  these  facts  as  far  as  they  are  disclosed. 

When  Bartlett  and  Clark  started  south  from  the  big  lead  on 
the  morning  of  March  27,  they  were  dismissed  from  the  polar 
sea  expedition.  When  Ryan  started  south  from  the  big  lead 
camp  six  days  later,  he  was  dismissed  from  the  polar  sea  ex- 
pedition. These  dismissals  were  evidently  for  the  purpose  of 
permitting  Peary  to  be  alone,  to  go  to  the  North  Pole,  or 
elsewhere.  Not  one  of  his  supporting  parties  again  saw  him 
after  these  dismissals,  unt'l  they  saw  him  on  the  land.  It  is 
obvious  that  none  were  intended  to  see  him  during  this  interval 
of  time. 

Peaiy  pretends  that  he  was  expecting  Bartlett,  Marvin  and 
Clark  to  reach  him  with  supplies  at  his  camp  (on  April  5)  at 
G  and  that  he  was  disappointed  at  their  failure  to  do  so.  I  will 
show  that  there  can  be  no  sincerity  in  these  expectations. 

Would  either  of  these  mt  (if  sane)  or  would  Peary  him- 
self, have  gone  Down  Stream  on  a  "stem  chase,"  84.2  miles, 
trying  to  catch  up  with  Cache  No.  2,  the  nearest  cache,  knowing 
from  their  experience  to  that  date,  that  they  could  only  travel 
at  an  average  speed  of  about  4J^  miles  per  day,  and  that  the 
ice  under  them  was  going  just  as  fast  in  the  same  direction,  and 
knowing  that  if  th^  finally  reached  the  cache  it  would 
then  be  168.8  miles  away  from  the  camp  to  the  east,  Down 
Stream,  and  44  miles  to  the  south  or  more  than  200  miles  from 
the  camp;  twice  as  far  away  as  the  land  or  the  ship  and  that  if 
they  should  then  load  their  sledges  from  the  cache  and  turn 


14 


298 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


back,  that  they  could  only  stem  the  current?  These  preten- 
sions are  so  preposterous  and  so  absurd,  that  I  tire  of  exposing 
them  and  no  doubt  the  reader  tires  of  seeing  them.  But  I 
must  keep  on. 

As  the  last  illustration,  I  will  take  Bartlett's  whereabouts 
separately.  It  tells,  as  everything  tells,  practically  the  same 
story. 

Peary  wrote  (on  page  106,  March  9)  that  Bartlett  left  Camp 
that  day  for  Heckla  "  for  additional  load. "  Then  (on  page  109, 
March  IS)  he  wrote  again : 

"While  at  this  camp  the  Captain  came  in  having  been  six 
marches  from  Heckla. " 

Here  is  apparently  another  100%  forgetfubiess,  as  to  facts; 
because  these  dates  both  included  (9th  and  15th)  show  only  six 
days*  absence  for  the  round  trip,  not  the  single  outward  trip 
"from  Heckla. "  But  Peary  now  (Jime  6)  nearly  three  months 
afterwards,  on  his  return  to  the  ship  writes  again  that  Bartlett 
was  still  "pegging  away  at  the  work  north  of  Heckla. "  This  is 
a  very  ambiguous,  indefinite  description  of  Bartlett's  "Work." 
"Pegging  away"  at  what?  The  record  shows  that  he  was 
ordered  on  April  27  to  bring  supplies  to  Peary,  to  the  Big  Lead 
Camp!  Was  he  still  contmuing  making  the  alleged  six  days* 
trip  at  his  job  of  sle<^ng  supplies  from  Heckla  to  Cache  No.  1? 
This  can  be  the  only  possible  "work"  that  Peary  can  be  wishing 
the  reader  to  mfer  by  his  ambiguous  expression.  Put  how 
ridiculous!  How  mazing!  Cache  No.  1  on  this  date  (June  6) 
was  undoubted'  Atlantic  Ocean. 

I  have  g  aese  three  chapters  in  Peary's  book  very 

close  attentior  :ave  tried  to  study  them  from  every  point  of 

view,  in  order  to  get  at  the  probable  truth.  I  am  now  bound  to 
say,  that  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  sentence  written  after  Peary 
arrived  at  the  big  lead,  that  is  worthy  of  the  slightest  credence. 
I  do  not  think  that  any  intelligent,  unbiased  person,  can  study 
them  and  come  to  any  other  conclusion. 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  6'  in  1906? 
DiscovxaiT  BY  Invbnton 


S99 


The  curtain  now  rises.  The  light  of  heaven  truly  illumin- 
ates this  remarkable  scene.  The  mystery  vanishes.  We  now 
can  see  in  its  nakedness,  the  truth.  Ah!  the  villainy  of  it  all! 
The  key  to  the  secret  of  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole,  in- 
cluding the  secret  of  87"  6',  we  now  surely  possess.  All  must 
now  be,  to  any  intelligent  reader,  as  plam  as  day.  When  we 
look  at  that  straight  Une,  north  and  south  over  the  50th  merid- 
ian, from  87-  6'  to  Cape  Newmeyer;  and  at  that  other  atraight 
line,  north  and  south,  over  the  70th  meridian  from  the  North 
Pole  to  Cape  Columbia;  each  line  ignoring  all  indications  of  the 
effect  of  drift  upon  the  traveling;  and  the  two  narratives  con- 
cealing the  longitudes,  if  any  were  obtained,  of  any  camp  be- 
tween the  terminals  on  these  lines;  our  vision  clears. 

The  evidence  is  all  but  conclusive,  that  in  1909  Peary  did 
not  go  much  distance,  if  any  distance,  north  of  the  Borup 
Camp  at  85«  23'  (186  miles  from  land).  It  is  at  this  camp  that 
his  narrative  of  the  trip  of  1909  noticeably  begms  to  wobble. 
As  soon  thereafter  as  Marvin  was  out  of  the  way,  Peary  cer- 
tainly recrossed  to  the  south  sideof  the  big  lead  and  returned  to 
the  land  ice  for  safety.  On  this  land  ice,  worked  his  way  west, 
and  kept  west,  waiting  for  time.  This  must  be  true,  because* 
in  no  other  way  could  he  have  returned  to  Cape  Columbia  after 
his  long  absence  of  54  days.  Had  he  gone  very  much  farther 
north  than  the  Borup  Camp,  he  would,  as  has  been  shown,  have 
been  carried  by  the  current  out  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

Wth  the  invoition  established  and  the  purpose  of  the 
invention  known,  we  may  justly  indulge  in  reasonable  con- 
jecture based  on  this  knowledge  and  on  inferences  properly 
drawn  therefrom. 

It  is  now  quite  evident,  from  a  full  knowledge  of  both 
stories,  that  Peaiy  planned  in  his  mind,  to  do  in  1906  the  very 
thing  that  he  did  do  in  1900.  That  is  to  say,  he  intended  then 
m  1906,  as  soon  as  he  was  akme,  to  return  to  the  land  ice  for 
safety,  and  then  eventually,  at  the  proper  time,  letum  to  Mom; 


tl 


soo 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


^ 


m  ' 


V'^ 


and  then  to  plot  for  publication  a  straight  line  north  and  south, 
from  Moss  to  the  North  Pole  and  back. 

The  truth  of  this  theory  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  when  he 
had  reached  a  point  98  miles  north  of  Moss  (in  1906),  he  was 
over  60  miles  to  the  west  of  the  meridian  of  Moss.  There  can,  I 
think,  be  no  reason  advanced  for  such  faulty  navigation  as  this. 
There  can  be  no  excuse  even  for  being  in  that  location,  providing 
he  was  bound  for  the  North  Pole.  No  navigator  woidd  be 
likely  to  waste  over  50  per  cent  of  his  traveling  distance  the 
first  20  days  out,  when  much  of  this  time  was  on  the  solid, 
unmoving,  land  ice.  A  more  reasonable  explanation  for  his 
going  almost  as  far  west  as  north  is,  that  he  was  taking  the 
necessary  precaution,  against  the  easterly  current,  in  order  to 
keep  in  a  safe  positioii  to  the  west  so  as  to  be  permitted  event- 
ually to  return  (after  his  supporting  parties  had  left  him)  to 
Moss. 

The  alleged  diary  from  which  I  have  quoted,  of  the  7  J^  days' 
march  from  Storm  Camp  could  have  been' written  for  no  other 
purpose  than  to  serve  as  part  of  a  proposed  narrative  of  a  trip  to 
the  North  Pole.  It  covers,  approximately  225  miles  of  northing. 
Had  fortime  favored  Peary  in  1906  and  permitted  him  to  have 
reached,  with  his  supporting  parties,  a  i>oint  one  and  one-half 
degrees  of  latitude  further  north  before  being  stopped  by  the 
big  lead,  or  had  he  been  able  to  have  crossed  the  lead  immediate- 
ly upon  reaching  it,  thereby  enabling  him  to  have  dismissed 
those  supp>orting  parties  one  by  one  and  left  him  with  his  own 
sledges  fully  loaded  with  some  60  days'  supplies,  this  diary  then 
would  have  been  adaptable  and  imdoubtedly  would  have  been 
used,  and  it  would  have  made  as  complete  a  narrative  of  a 
"dash  to  the  Pole"  as  the  one  he  has  published  for  185  miles 
north  of  the  Bartlett  Camp.  In  fact  the  diary  of  1906  for  the 
7^  marches  is  clearly  the  original  from  which  the  "dash"  of 
1909  was  copied.  This  theory,  therefore,  which  I  have  ad- 
vanced as  to  Peary's  purposes  in  1906  can  hardly  be  considered 
a  conjecture,  so  complete  is  the  evidence  to  support  i^.  The 
following  is  a  brief  synopsis  of  this  evidence. 


IS 


Did  F'lry  Reach  87"  6'  in  1906f  801 

First:    The  purported  log  book  or  diary  of  the  7}^  marches 
shown  to  be  a  pure  invention  which  has  no  relevancy  or 
bearing  and  is  wholly  unadapted  to  a  trip  that  is  limited  to  87» 
6'  north. 

Second:  It  carries  internal  evidence  that  it  was  inserted 
in  the  book  Nearest  the  PoU  by  error,  mistake,  or  forgetful- 
ness. 

Third:  In  the  lengths  of  the  daily  marches,  in  the  total 
distance,  and  in  the  description  of  conditions  throughout  it 
carries  evidence  that  it  was  written  as  part  of  a  story  of  a  trio 
to  the  North  Pole. 

Fourth:  The  mistake  or  error  m  its  publication  m  the 
book  Nearest  the  Pole  (1906)  havmg  in  three  years  time  been 
undiscovered  by  the  reading  public,  it  was  then  copied  and 
used  m  the  book  North  Pole  with  no  material  change  in  its 
sentiment,  its  purpose,  or  its  character.  But  changed  only  to 
adapt  it  to  a  5  march  trip  instead  of  7J4  march  trip. 

Had  he  been  able  to  have  returned  to  Moss  m  1906,  it 
would  have  saved  him  the  1909  expedition.    But  he  was  Im- 
avoidably   thwarted   in   this  purpose.    The   uncrossable   big 
lead;  the  unfortunate  deUy  in  opportunity  to  dismiss  Ryan- 
the  unavoidable  7  days'  drift  of  his  camp  during  this  deky;  and 
the  sudden  arising  of  the  big  storm;  followed  by  another  7 
days'  drift;  made  it  nnpossible  during  this  long  interval  of  time 
in  consequence  of  this  strong  current  for  him  to  return  over  the 
ice  to  Moss,  or  even  to  reach  land  anywhere  west  of  Neumieyer. 
There  was,  therefore,  no  way  for  him  even  in  a  fictitious  story 
on  this  occasion,  in   (1906)  to  ignore  this  unavoidable  185 
miles  of  easterly  drift.    He  was  compeUed  by  these  inexorable 
circumstances  and  conditions  to  plot  his  straight  line  north  from 
Newmeyer,  instead  of  from  Moss,  and  be  satisfied  with  87»  6' 
mstead  of  the  North  Pole. 

The  validity  of  any  new  geographical  discovery,  until 
otherwise  verified,  must  reside  in  a  narrative.  The  only  way  for 
Peary  to  have  claimed  the  world's  record  for  northing  in  1906 
was  to  write,  which  he  supposed  was,  a  plausible  story;  and  to 


I; 

s  ■ 

I' 

P 


if 


1 


SOS 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaoonered 


plot  a  route  rq>reaentmg  that  story.  It  is  now  perfectly  obvious 
Ihai  he  arbitrarily  selected  his  northern  point  (in  1906)  on  the 
BOtii  meridian  after  his  return  to  land  directly  north  of  hie  landing 
place,  Nevomeyer.  It  was  all  he  could  have  done  that  year. 
He  fabricated  all  the  parts  of  the  story  that  could  be  fabricated. 
He  could  not  ignore  the  drift. 

The  omission,  therefore,  of  the  effect  of  drift  upon  the 
traveling  and  concealing  longitudes  of  the  camps  on  the  ficti- 
tious lines,  are  the  eaaence,  the  prime  elements,  of  the  invention. 
With  straight  lines  plotted  north  and  south,  all  else  are  alleged 
facts  that  can  be  fabricated  to  conform  to  this  paramount,  vital 
requirement.  The  principal  necesjaiy  features  to  accompany 
these  straight  lines  are  perfectly  obvious.  They  are  these: 
Gro  as  far  north  as  possible  with  supporting  parties.  When 
hope  of  further  progress  is  gone,  dismiss  them.  Then  with 
trusty  Henson  and  a  few  Eskimos,  go  somewhere  with  no  one 
else  to  witness.  Assume  a  northern  destination.  It  is  then  a 
simple  proposition  to  divide  this  distance  into  marches;  pre- 
scribe conditions  to  fit  the  marches  with  no  obstructions  to 
rapid  travel,  have  no  delay.s,  march  every  day  to  the  limit, 
tben  strain  a  little  beyond  the  limit  in  emei^ncies,  of  human  or 
animal  pedestrianism  or  endurance.  These  cardinal  features 
are  applied  identically  to,  and  they  form  the  groimdwork  of,  the 
allied  northern  accomplishments  in  both  the  1906  and  1909 
stories.  A  weak  feature  to  my  miud  in  both  is  in  not  concealing 
Peaiy's  simultaneous  arrival  to  land,  with  Clark  in  1906  and 
his  probable  simultaneous  arrival  with  Bartlett  in  1909.  The 
scope  of  the  invention,  its  general  appliance  and  its  obvious 
pmpose,  are  the  same  in  both  stories;  nevertheless  it  is  after  all, 
as  may  in  conclusion  yet  be  seen,  very  crude.  It  shows 
amazing  lack  of  ingenuity  or  carelessness  in  copying  so  closely, 
too  closely  it  seems,  in  1909,  the  minor  and  unimportant  details 
of  the  1906  sto]^'.  This  carelessness  robs  each  story  of  all 
merit  of  genuineness. 

The  character  of  this  carelessness  alone,  indicates  invention. 

A  few  familiar  illustrations  will  suffice  to  show  it.    He 


Did  Peary  Rtaeh  87*  6'  in  1906f 


soa 


starts  a  rtmr  story,  with  a  new  prelude,  in  both  instances,  as 
soon  as  his  supporting  parties  are  gone.  The  very  next  day. 
With  a  purpose  evidently  to  prepare  the  reader's  mmd  from 
what  would  otherwise  be  forthcoming  shocks,  he  outlines  a 
program  in  advance  to  fit  the  proposed  distances,  even  to 
quinary  districts.  The  traveling  conditions  m  every  respect, 
instantly  change  for  the  better.  This  also  the  very  next  day. 
A  climax  in  conditions  is  reached  in  both  stories  towards  the 
end  when  adjectives  become  monotonous,  with  a  newly  frozen 
lead  of  smooth  ice  trending  "north  and  touth."  In  <me  case 
"northeaet  and  southtoeet"  when  those  du«ctions  at  that  time 
paralleled  his  course.  The  speed  jumps  mstantly,  the  first 
day,  to  6  times  the  average  to  that  point;  the  average  there- 
after to  the  end,  jumps  to  over  twice  the  fonner  maximum 
distance  for  a  single  march.  Dogs  gallop  when  tired,  as  th^ 
never  did  or  could  when  fresh.  Beaches  the  northern  goal 
vas  he  had  predicted  in  his  prelude  severs .  days  in  advance,)  in 
both  instances,  on  a  sunny  day,  just  befoi^  noon,  In  time  for  an 
observati(m.  Enters  Storm  Camp  on  the  return  as  he  did 
Bartlett's  Camp,  in  a  blizzArd;  and  his  eyes  only  give  him  trouble 
in  both  instances,  from  taking  the  northern  observations. 
All  these  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  coincidents.  These 
cannot  be  a  record  of  actual  events  copied  from  an  original  log 
book.  The  similarities  in  every  feature  '^re  too  great.  It 
would  seem  that  almost  anybody  could  have  invented  some- 
thing new  for  the  second  story. 

The  improvements  or  changes  in  the  invention  of  1906  arc 
even  more  significant  than  is  its  subsequent  application  in  1909, 
because  without  them  being  made,  it  would  have  been  im- 
possible to  apply  the  invention  successfully  in  1909.  There 
were  natural  conditions  and  circumstances  which  made  the 
invention  inapplicable  as  a  whole  to  that  later  journey.  It 
needed  modifying  to  fit  those  different  circumstances.  The 
fact  that  he  made  these  modifications  to  exactly  fit  those  differ- 
ent ccmditions  and  those  different  ciicumstances,  pn>ves  again 
the  invention.  . 


t 


:U 


-4'!- 


304 


Has  the  North  Pole  Bern  Diteovmd 


W 


f 


4h  * 


A  panoramic  view  of  Diagram  17,  or  even  of  Peary's  plotting 
on  Map  No.  2  will  at  once  show  that  had  anyone  attempted  to 
have  gone  as  far  north  as  the  Pole,  mider  conditions  necessary 
to  be  described  by  Peary  in  1906,  as  before  shown,  he  would 
inevitably  have  drifted  out  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  the 
vicinity  of  Spitzbergen.  This  manifest  inevitably  must  be 
smothered  in  a  new  story  of  a  trip  to  the  Pole  to  make  the 
story  plausible. 

Two  very  important  features  of  Arctic  travel,  as  before 
said,  are  described  in  the  story  of  1906,  which  became  necessaiy 
to  be  described  in  that  year,  m  view  of  the  impossibility  of 
returning  to  the  starting  pomt,  that  mutt  not  be  described  m  a 
stoiy  of  a  journey  to  the  North  Pole  from  any  point  on  Grant 
land,  or  from  any  point  on  Greenland.   Such  a  story  would  be 
absolutely  destitute  of  pkusibility,   if  these  features   were 
included  in  the  description.    They  are  omitted,  hence  these 
omissions  are  pregnant  with  significance.    One  of  these  features, 
I  will  again  repeat,  is  the  disastrous  easterly  current  experienced 
in  gomg  north  in  1906,  which  played  such  havoc  with  steady 
navigation,  broke  up  the  expedition,  and  which  prevented  both 
Clark  and  Peary  and  probably  others  of  the  expediUon  from 
getting  back  to  land  as  far  west  as  Moss,  or  even  to  Sheridan. 
But  omitting  the  effect  of  drift,  would  of  course  be  futile  with- 
out omitting  also  as  a  necessary  complement  to  drift,  any 
mention  of  longitude.    In  fact,  the  effect  of  drift  could  not  be 
omitted  without  also  concealing  the  truth  about  longitude. 
This  is  obvious.     Peary  himself  has  shown  this  obvious  fact. 
When  he  reached  the  big  lead  in  1906  on  March  26,  he  indicates 
that  he  supposed  he  was  practically  north  of  Point  Moss  on 
longitude  66«  30'.    But  his  observaUon  for  longitude  on  the 
80th,  showed  that  he  had  arrived  at  the  big  lead  on  longitude 
77"  S«'.     He  took  another  observation  for  longitude  on  the 
18th  day  of  April,  and  found  that  he  was  then  in  longitude  61" 
40'.    Yet  between  the  arrival  at  the  lead  on  March  26  and  the 
date  when  he  took  this  last  mentioned  observation  (April  IS) 
he  alleges  that  he  had  on^y  made  8  marches  directly  north  (from 


Did  Peary  Reach  87'  ff  in  1906? 


906 


Big  JjuA  Camp  to  Storm  Camp)  F  to  G  which  should  not  have 
much  changed  his  meridian.  These  longitudes  exposed  the 
drift.  Longitudes  always  expose  a  drift,  or  error  in  a  course; 
that  is  why  they  are  obtained.  Therefore,  if  one  wishes  to 
write  a  story  of  a  trip  from  Grant  Land  or  Greenland  to  the 
North  Pole  and  return  in  the  tracks  of  the  outward  march,  it  is 
essential  that  he  eliminate  both  longitude  and  the  effect  of  the 
drift,  going  north  as  well  as  returning  south.  Peary  omits 
them  both  for  the  entire  trip  in  1909.  With  these  amendments 
to  the  invention,  it  became  just  as  useful  m  1909  as  it  was  in 
1906,  and  would  be  just  as  useful  for  any  distance  north  or 
south,  and  in  fact  from  any  imaginary  base. 

Peary  claims  to  have  gone  north  in  1909  on  the  70th 
meridian,  m  the  same  month  of  March.  He  therefore  would 
have  crossed  over  the  tracks  of  1906  in  two  different  places, 
encountering  in  1909  the  same  easterly  current,  which  is  fully 
described  by  Borup.  Yet  he  allies  that  the  tracks  in  that 
year  (except  at  the  grave  of  Marvin)  remamed  unfaulted,  54 
days,  or  until  he  sighted  land  on  his  return. 

The  remarkable  similarities,  therefore,  in  the  design  of  the 
fictitious  parts  of  the  two  expeditions;  the  pronounced  results 
alleged  to  have  been  accomplished  commencing  immediately 
the  day  after  leaving  the  last  supporting  party;  the  improba- 
bility checked  in  each  instance  by  the  almost  simultaneous 
arrival  on  land  by  Clark  and  by  Bartlett;  the  elimination  of 
drift  and  longitudes,  which  were  essential  to  the  fictitious  por- 
tions only  of  both  expeditions;  is  convmcing  evidence  to  any 
intelligent  person  that  all  is  invent'-n.  That  it  was  clearly 
used  in  bothinstances  to  establish  claims  impossible  of  being 
true. 

A  distinguished  author  had  said: 

"I  lay  it  down  as  a  position  that  cannot  be  controverted, 
farst  that  the  agreemmt  of  all  parts  of  a  story  does  not  prove 
that  stoiy  to  be  true,  because  the  parts  may  agree,  and  the 
whole  may  be  false;  secondly,  that  the  disagreement  of  the  parts 


Sr  >. 

if. . 


II ; 


H'l 


S06 


Hoitiu  Sorlh  PoU  Bten  D%$eo»0rtd 


■it  •■' ; 
1  i  > 


of  a  story  proves  the  whoh  cannot  be  true.  The  aflreement 
does  not  prove  truth,  but  the  disagreement  proves  falsehood 
positively. " 

The  peculiar  similarities  in  the  narratives  of  1006  and  of 
1909  are  so  marked,  the  diversity  in  results  occurring  in  both 
years  instantly  on  the  day  after  the  separation  from  the  white 
men;  the  diversion  mcluding  weather,  ice  conditions,  speed, 
delays,  conditions  of  sledges,  and  each  and  all  continumg  b 
both  cases  to  the  end,  the  significant  discrepancy  in  the  speed, 
in  both  instances  over  the  same  ice  and  at  the  same  time,  are 
so  pronounced  that  they  can  haVe  but  one  meaning,  and  no 
explanation  possibly  can  be  offered  that  will  reconcile  these 
similarities  with  truth.  The  speed  on  the  return  of  Clark  in 
1906,  and  that  of  Bartlett  in  1909,  both  conforming  with  the 
outward  march,  and  the  speed  of  Peary  when  alone,  m  each 
instance  on  his  return  over  the  same  space  doubling  his  outward 
speed,  all  considered  tt^ther  forges  a  chain  of  circumstantial 
evidence  so  strong,  and  without  a  missing  link,  that  it  leaves  no 
room  even  for  a  reasonable  doubt. 

My  chief  purpose  m  making  this  later  expose  is  to  prove  by 
corrobvuP'ive,  convincing  and  irrefragable  circumstantial 
evidence  that  the  story  of  the  trip  to  the  Pole  is  pure  invention. 
That  the  story  is  a  second  use  of  one  invention,  and  that  the 
amendments  prove  that  it  is  invention. 

It  must  be  remembered  in  considering  my  analysis  of  either 
of  Peary's  books,  that  I  do  not  use  a  word  of  evidence  presented 
by  Peary's  enemies,  but  only  that  which  he,  himself,  lias 
written,  which  is  evidence  that  is  unquestionable  and  beyond 
dispute. 

Any  person  who  will  read  chapterr  >  '5  and  7,  which  I  am 
now  reviewing,  in  the  book  *' Nearest  the  Pole,"  with  an  open 
mind  and  close  attention,  cannot  fail.  I  think,  to  note  tiiat 
Peaiy  has  by  his  own  hand,  branded  himself  as  an  impostor,  and 
that  the  scar  is  burned  so  deep,  tbat  nothing  in  this  world  but 
oblivion  can  erase  it. 


M.^ 


Did  Ptary  Riaek  87*  6'  in  19069 


807 


It  ia  pUun  enough  that  if  one  can  m  a  ftmy,  without  huniah- 
ing  odkteral  evidence  to  support  it,  delibemtely  abeent  him- 
self from  available  witnesses;  and  while  absent  smooth  down  the 
pressure  ridges  of  the  polar  sea;  close  all  open  water  spaces; 
ignore  all  drift;  ocmceal  his  meridian  whereabouts;  have  all 
winds  fair;  and  augment  his  speed  to  suit  his  ends;  one  can 
readily  travel  back  and  forth,  over  any  pack  ice,  on  any  selected 
meridian,  over  any  sea,  as  easily,  as  readily  and  as  direct,  as  he 
can  pace  fore  and  aft  on  a  quarter  deck,  but 

"foul  deeds  will  rise,  though  all  the 
worid  overwhelm  them  to  men's  qres." 

This  story  was  published  to  the  world  and  universally 
accepted  as  true.  What  w(Hiderful  fortune  this  must  have  been 
for  Peary's  reputation  and  for  his  contemporary  fame!  In 
1907  this  book.  Nearest  the  Pole  came  out  containing  these 
chapters  which  I  have  reviewed.  The  book  passed  muster. 
Cagni's  and  Nansen's  Stars  were  apparently  eclipsed  by  an 
American.  What  a  desperate  hasard  Peary  seemingly  took! 
How  fortunate  his  escape!  We  may  imagine  to  what  extent 
the  seductive  charm  of  popular  applause,  then  sweetened  his 
throbbing  breast,  as  he  listened  to  the  echoes  of  his  renown, 
reverberating  aroimd  the  world.  He  may  well  have  been 
misguided  into  convincing  himself  that  his  work  was  the  in- 
spiration of  genius.  An  unparalleled  opportunity  then  seem- 
ingly opened  its  portals  to  this  apparently  indomitable  hero. 
The  temptation  was  colossal.  He  may  have  asked  himself, 
"If  87'  6'  so  easily,  why  not  the  North  Pole?"  And  echo 
naturally  would  have  answered  him,  "Why  not?" 

It  would  serve  no  us^ul  purpose  at  this  place  in  my  review 
to  mince  matters  or  hesitate  about  words.  The  plain  trutii  is  thi# : 

The  alleged  journey  to  87*  6'  with  such  an  equipment  as 
Peary  had  was  an  utter  impossibility.  Such  a  jouroqr  with 
such  an  equipment  always  will  be  an  impossibility  from  either 
Greenland  or  Grant  Land.  Loaded  sledges  such  as  Peary  had, 
could  not  reascmably  be  expected  to  travel  over  the  drifting 


i' 


i|£ 


31 

1 1 

¥ 


n 

u 


3f 


SOS 


Han  the  Sorih  Pole  Been  L  ureotwed 


pack  fee,  at  an  averaj.c>  speed  of  ihok  than  three  n.  I«s  |jer  day, 
a  shown  by  Peary's  ow  record  w  .lich  is  not  'fjjeed  enough  to 
overcome  the  current.  wse  dui  not  make  thret  miUa  a  day 
in  hii  iilempt  to  a/hanc  north.  It  ouW  u  i  e  taken  Peary  six 
months  to  have  made  tue  distant-f  ic  c  u.  to  nave  made  in 
26  days.  In  that  six  months,  all  i^e  in -n  and  dogs  .vould  have 
starved  and  their  skeletons  wou!«i  tiave  d  ifte^l  on  the  ice  far 
down  iv  the  north  Atlant  r.  It  wf»iild  ^>e  id  .»cy  for  an\  one 
to  att^  11'  s  todefenu  I  tv.ry's  plain)  •  87°  '^' 
sin  can  nuiKe  !♦,  an  '  the  el   uuant  pro 

conscienceles"*  irrpostui 

This  expos<    ?s  more  far  ^  aching     tan  i 
T    obtiiinsuchpinehbec'  ulorv    by  polls  t^inp  i 
and  staining  the  returds  of  A^    i^-  exploriiu  n 


But  the  attempt  I  8u<  *'  irij. 
from  the  brilliant,  am  "i^.iAH 
Cagni  and  of  Nanse'      s  noth  i  t     short 


'eon 
sup« 


*ans  u 
)     a 


It  is 
!i  himsei 


faise  as 
o  oe  a 


false, 
liatory 

^"  glor. 
'vements   oi 


CHAFiER  TX 


II 

u 
V 

i 


HOW  PEARY  DISCREDITED  COOK 

"And  history  shall  loathe  and  blame 
Such  glory,  tarnished  by  so  deep  a  shame. " 

If  the  disclosures  so  far  submitted  indicnte  that  Peary  has 
I  '  iced  deception,  his  actions  elsewhere  with  regard  to  Cook 
fi.  h  collateral  evidence  in  support  of  such  an  indication. 
Inasmuch  as  Peary's  first  mow  against  Cook  was  made  at  Etah 
bei  >re  Peary  went  north  to  Siieridan,  the  conditions  there  and 
the  attendant  circumstances  will  be  recited  so  that  we  may  view 
til  is  matter  in  its  true  lighi . 

September   1,   1907,  Dr    Frederick  A.  Cook  left  Etah, 

Gr.-enland,  in  the  yacht  John  R.  Bradley,  for  Annoatok  about 

«•    nil  *s  farther  north  (about  30  miles  in  a  straight  Ime  across 

-  peninsula)  arriving  the  next  day.     Annoatok  is  the  most 

^ '  rly  sfttlemen  t  in  the  worid.     It  is  in  sight  of  Cape  Sabine. 

-smith  Sound,  which  is  the  spot  where  tb*;  starving  sur- 

•f  the  Greeley  expedition  were  rescued  in  1884  by  Ad- 

I!  -hley.     After  landing  a  supply  of  stores,   the  yacht 

retailed  leaving  Cook  and  Rudolf  Francke  to  spend  the  arctic 

wmter  there,  in  preparation  for  the  polar  journey,  and  mcident- 

ally  to  acciunulate  furs  and  ivory. 

Cook,  during  the  long  arctic  night  gave  employment  in 
various  ways  to  nearly  all  the  250  Eskimos  compc  sing  the  tribe. 
He  estoblisl  «?d  his  mam  relief  station  at  Annoatok,  in  order  to 
safeguard  himself  m  the  event  that  the  fate  of  Greeley  should 
befall  him.     Later  eveuLs  pnved  that  he  was  ^o  doini^. 

On  February  19,  1908,  he  started  from  A 
Rudolf  Francke.  the  only  white  man  in  the 

309 


1^ 


H 


a 


SIO 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


)'« 


r    ■•? 


his  storehouse,  trunks,  stores,  furs  and  ivory.  He  made  a 
second  cache  of  stores  at  Svartevoeg,  at  the  north  end  of  Axel 
Heiberg  Land.  On  March  18, 1908,  he  started  from  Svartevoq; 
on  his  dash  for  the  Pole  with  provisions  for  eighty  days.  After 
travelmg  3  days  on  the  Polar  Sea,  he  sent  -^tten  instructions 
back  to  Francke  by  the  Eskimo  Ko^Iootingwah.  Cook  tells 
of  this  message:  "Because  of  this  imcertamty,  Francke  was 
instructed  to  wait  (in  Annoatok)  until  Jime  5,  1908,  and  if  we 
did  not  return  he  was  told  to  place  Koolootingwah  in  charge 
(of  the  stores,  etc.)  and  go  home,  either  by  the  whalers,  or  by 
the  Danish  ships  to  the  south.  No  relief  which  he  could  offer, 
would  help  us,  and  to  wait  for  an  indefinite  time  alone,  would 
have  inflicted  a  needless  hardship.  This  and  many  other 
instructions  were  prepared  for  Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  to 
take  back."  June  6,  1908,  arrived  and  passed,  but  no  tidings 
came  from  Cook  to  Francke,  who  in  the  meantime  had  fallen 
iU. 

In  August  11  of  the  same  year  (1908)  Pr  iry  reached  Etah 
in  the  Roosevelt  on  his  way  north  to  winter  quarters  at  Cape 
Sheridan.  His  collier  Erik  also  arrived  with  Harry  P.  Whitney, 
a  New  Haven  huntsman  on  board.  Whitney  remained  at  Anno- 
atok during  the  winter.  Francke  later  had  to  return  to  civiliza- 
tion, as  he  was  ill.  He  was  permitted  by  Peary  to  go  on  the 
Erik,  but  only  on  condition  that  he  first  surrender  Cook's 
property  to  him,  and  not  to  I^x>lootingwah,  as  required  by  the 
written  instructions  of  Cook.*  This  property  included,  besides 
Cook's  relief  stores  and  ivoiy,  a  trunk  containing  valuable 
furs.  Francke's  statement  is  as  follows:  "Dr.  Cook  is  the 
greatest  martyr  of  modem  times  and  Peary  has  fikhed  his 
gl<»y.  I  followed  Dr.  Cook  to  Annoatok,  saw  his  preparatbns 
for  the  polar  trip,  and  vtetured  the  opinion  that  the  chances 
were  100  to  1  that  he  would  reach  the  Pole.    I  was  taken  lick 

*A  year  later  umilar  tactics  were  pumiied  by  Peary  when  WhiHi^y  waa 
returning  on  ti>e  Rootndt.  He  was  forbidden  by  Peary  to  take  wHh  nin  a 
single  item  belonging  to  Dr.  Cook  and  was  therefore  obliged  to  leave  among  the 
KKw  of  Etah  instruments  and  documents  iriiieh  had  been  left  ia  his  can  by 
took. 


How  Peary  DtscredUed  Cook 


811 


and  had  to  return  on  one  of  Peary's  ships.  Commander  Peary 
consented  to  take  me  home  on  the  steamer  Erik,  if  I  gave  him 
200  blue  Arctic  fox  skins  belonging  to  Dr.  Cook,  which  I  carried 
with  me.  I  was  compelled  to  accept  the  terms  to  save  my  life. 
The  skins  were  worth  $10,000.  Peary  presented  them  to  pro- 
minent Americans,  former  President  Boosevelt  being  one  of 
them.    Dr.  Cook  never  mentioned  the  loss  of  the  skins.  "* 

As  soon  as  Francke  had  left  on  the  Erik,  Peaiy  proceeded 
to  cache  a  two  years'  reserve  supply  of  stores  of  his  own,  at 
Etah,  in  the  event  he  should  lose  his  ship.  He  left  his  bo's'n. 
Murphy  ostensibly  in  charge  of  these  stores,  with  Wm. 
Pritchard,  the  cabin  boy  to  keep  him  company.  He  left  both 
written  and  oral  instructions  with  Murphy,  which  are  fully 
related  by  Pritchard  and  Whitney.  The  written  instructions 
were  evidently  for  the  record,  or  historical  purposes,  in  the 
event  Peary's  expedition  never  returned.  The  ond  instructionfl 
only  were  to  be  obeyed.  This  distinction  appears  to  have  been 
mutually  undostood.  In  the  written  instructions  (Murphy 
could  not  read  a  word  of  them,  or  write  a  word,  or  make  a  figure, 
and  was  not  expected  to),  Peaiy  described  his  own  cache  at 
Etah  as  "ttoret  for  the  relief  qf  Dr.  Cook.'*  He  also  uses  the 
same  phrase  in  his  report  to  the  Government  dated  August  8, 
1906.  These  written  instructions  also  provided  for  sending  out 
a  "rdirf  expedition  for  Dr.  Cook,  if  he  did  not  return  at  the 
appointed  time"  (June  5,  1908.)  These  alleged  mstractiona 
were  of  course,  meanin^ess  and  insincere,  because  the  appraated 
time  that  Cook  designated  for  Francke  to  wait  for  him  was 
June  6, 1908.  Peary's  instructions,  therefinre,  were  issued  more 
than  two  m<mths  past  the  appointed  time  as  Peary  was  in  Etah 
August  17.  If  Peary  had  wished  to  have  sent  a  relief  expedi- 
tion to  Cook,  he  would  have  instructed  it  to  proceed  at  once. 
It  is  needless  to  add  that  no  expedition  was  ever  sent  although 
Murphy  Kved  in  Cook's  st(»ehou8e,  and  frcmi  his  storra  a  fall 
year  after  that  date. 

*Vnaf6k»'B  aOdaTH  puUkhed  fai  Um  Tourirt  IhfMbe  of  Oct  IMO  givw 
a  fuller  accouat  of  the  tnuuBctioB. 


i- 


I  * 

i-i 
if 

It 

H 


5  •• 


11 


SIS 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


i 


t- 


JBi« 


Immediately    upon    Francke's   departure   on    the   Erik, 
Murphy  was  verbally  instiucted  to  close  Peary's  storehouse  at 
Etah,  and  move  with  Pritchard  and  the  hunter  Whitney  into 
Cook's  storehouse  at  Annoatok,  SO  miles  north,  and  live  upon 
those  supplies.    This  they  did,  and  with  neatness  and  dispatch, 
under  the  verbal  instructions,  began  to  "relieve  Dr.  Cook"  of 
every  vestige  of  his  own  relief  stores  and  property,  which  he  had 
left  behind  at  Annoatok,  and  had  spent  an  Arctic  winter  in 
accumulating.    Wm.  Pritchard,  Peary's  cabin  boy,  is  reported* 
to  have  -aid,  that  Peary's  verbal  instructions  to  Murphy  and 
himself  were  explicit  (this  is  corroborated  by  Whitney,  and  I 
understand  by  an  aflfidavit  by  Murphy),  that  they  should  con- 
sume all  of  Cook's  supplies  at  Aoaoatok  before  touching  any  of 
Peary's  supplies  ftt  Etah.    This,  he  says,  they  unmediately 
proceeded  to  do.    They  had  continued  under  these  instructions 
for  over  a  year  when  the  Peary  expedition  returned  from  the 
North,  at  which  time,  after  some  philanthropy  to  the  Eskimos, 
they  are  reported  to  have  bartered  what  remained,  for  furs, 
ivoiy,  etc.    The  verbal  mstructions  were  obeyed.    The  written 
were  evidently  intentionally  and  witirely  ignored.    This  would 
seem  incredible  were  it  not  undisputed. 

When  this  work  at  Annoatok  and  Etah  was  completed  to 
his  satisfactirai,  Pearj-  wrote  a  report  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  with  a  copy  to  the  Supt.  of  U.  S.  and  Geodetic  Survey, 
that  he  had  "landed  two  men  at  Etah  with  supplies  for  the 
relief  of  Dr.  Cook. "  On  Aug.  18,  Peary  steamed  northward  to 
winter  quarters  at  Cape  Sheridan  and  thence  to  the  Polar  Sea. 
Cook  had  not  been  h^urd  from  smce  he  left  Axel  Heiberg  Land 
the  March  before;  where  he  was  to  winter,  Peary  did  not  know. 
If  alive  he  was  in  destitution.  These  stores  were  at  that 
moment  a  matter  of  life  or  death  to  him  could  he  but  reach 
them.  Peary  knew  '^  l^*  He  also  knew  that  under  such 
conditi(»is  numy  reli>  ^ticKis   had  been  sent,  and  many 

Uves  had  been  sacrifit  the  search  for  Sir  John  Franklin. 

A  similar  expedition  waa  at  that  moment  being  organized  by 

^Saturday  Etening  Pott,  April  Id,  1910. 


How  Peary  Discredited  Cook 


SIS 


ch 


others  for  Dr.  Cook.    Such  is  the  common  instinct  of  humanity. 
Peary  was  familiar  with  such  history,  but  he  also  knew  that 
his  ship  Roosevelt  might  be  lost  with  all  its  stores,  and  taking  a 
selfish  view,  he  must  have  seen  that  here  was  a  double  oppor- 
tunity, first  to  protect  himself,  second  to  control  possibly  the 
only  means  of  a  rival's  success.    He,  therefore,  chose  to  take 
possession  of  Cook's  stores  and  hold  them  for  his  own  necessities, 
or  for  such  other  use  as  would  promote  his  ends.    In  con- 
sequence the  sprirg  of  1909  arrived  with  Cook's  stores  in  Peary's 
hands.    This  is  a  peculiar  transaction.     The  writings  separated 
from  the  real  instructions,  would  show  a  spirit  of  fraternal 
benevol'.-.ce  and  generosity  on  the  part  of  Peary.    But  the 
facts  which  it  is  attempted  to  suppress,  contradict  the  written 
record,  ^^'hich  written  record  alone  Peaiy  had  published.  Such  du- 
plicity is  wholly  inconsistent  with  a  sincere,  candid  1,  or  scientific 
mind,  and  cannotbe  attributed  toa  genuine  searcherforgeograph- 
ical  knowledge.  This  transaction,  which  although  published,* 
has  never  been  denied,  is  believed  to  be  without  precedent  in 
Arctic  ezplorati(m.    It  is  not  the  deed  of  a  Parry,  Hudson, 
Greel^r,  or  any  other  great  modem  discoverer.    It  is  linked 
with  eariier  less  civilised  days.    Inasmuch  as  these  actions  at 
Annoatok  could  in  no  way  assist  Peary  in  his  quest  of  the  Pole, 
or  on  his  return  homeward,  having  ample  stores  of  his  own, 
*h^  must  have  been  inspired  by  motives  of  jealousy  or  avarice. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  not  diflicult  to  understand  that  a  mind 
which  would  not  scruple  at  execution  of  such  a  plot,  or  which  is 
governed  by  such  motives,  might  not  hesitate  long  or  smously, 
as  to  the  manner  of  writing  a  diary. 

Cook  at  that  very  momeut  was  cm  the  verge  of  starvation, 
trudging  with  a  part  of  a  sled  toward  Annoatok  for  food  and 
supplies.  He  had  already  survived  a  winter  as  probably  no 
other  man  in  writta>  hisimy  had,  without  food,  fuel,  or  ammuni- 
tion. With  nothing  but  his  hands  and  one  sled,  he  faced  the 
approaching  Arctic  winter  at  Cape  Sparbo  <»i  Jones'  Sound. 
With  part  oi  a  atod  runner,  he  made  the  only  weapon  with  which 
*8ataitfav  Eotmmt  Pott,  April  10,  IMO. 


i  ,■ 
M 


:J    "^'^ 


if 


n 


i  li, 

I 

I 

* 


w 


814 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacoeered 


\w  ■ 


■«• 


he  could  supply  food  and  fuel  for  three  men,  and  made  a  den 
into  which  they  crawled  till  the  six  months  winter  was  passed. 
Finally,  after  fourteen  montLs  absence,  on  April  18,  1909,  while 
Peary  was  still  north,  Cook  with  his  two  Eskimo  companions, 
Ahwela  and  Etukishook,  returned  to  Annoatok.  He  was  "foot- 
sore, weary,  ragged,  hungry,  and  worn  to  a  skeleton."  Th^ 
were  all  three  so  famished  and  exhausted  that  miles  before  they 
reached  Annoatok,  they  dropped  their  sled,  containing  the 
instruments,  and  continued  without  it,  sending  other  Eskimos 
back  for  it. 

As  Cook  approached  his  storehouse,  Harry  P.  Whitney, 
went  to  meet  him  with  a  sled  and  d<%s,  and  informed  him  of  the 
new  situation  and  the  changed  ccmditions  at  the  storehouse. 
Peary's  bo's'n  Murphy  who  had  been  in  possession,  Pritchard 
who  was  with  him,  and  Whitney,  were  all  strangers  to  Cook. 
These  three  white  men,  were  the  only  white  men  he  saw  while 
he  remained  in  Annoatok,  or  Etah.  Thsy  were,  in  fact,  the 
only  white  people  in  the  country.  Cook  had  some  dispute  with 
Murphy  about  anmiming  such  unwarrantable  and  cruel  authority 
over  his  property,  and  Cook  says  "I  ordoied  him  out  instantly, 
and  made  him  stay  out  too,  until  I  discovered  that  he  would 
freese  to  death.  Then  iu  hoq>itality,  I  admitted  him." 
Pritchard  says  that  Cook,  alter  being  admitted  to  the  cabin, 
made  himself  comfortable,  said  but  little  and  retired  for  the 
night,  as  did  Whitney,  Murphy  and  himself.  Murphy,  before 
the  others  had  arisoi  next  morning,  left  for  Etah,  SO  miles 
south.  (Cook  only  saw  him  once  again,  a  few  days  afierwaid, 
as  he  was  passing  through  Etah,  enroute  home.) 

Cook  then  quietly  said  to  Whitn^  (not  noticing  Pritchard 
in  a  berth),  "If  you  will  pledge  secrecy  until  after  the  Booteedt 
has  reached  civilization,  I  have  great  new*  to  tell  you.  I  have 
been  to  the  Pole."  Pritchard  overheard  this  statement,  and 
Cook  then  requited  that  he  idso  keep  it  secret  so  that  Peary 
might  hear  it  first  when  he  reached  home.    Pritchard  promiaed. 

Notwithstanding  Cook's  famished  omditicm,  he  loaded  a 
sled  (leaving  a  memorandum  receipt  of  the  artides  taken)  and 


How  Peary  Duerediied  Cook 


915 


on  the  21st  of  April  three  days  after  his  arrival,  he  started  with 
Koolootingwah  on  foot  over  the  ice  and  snow  of  GreenUnd,  t» 
form  a  connection  with  civilization  at  Upemavik,  and  to  thrill 
the  world  with  the  news  of  his  great  achievement.  He  hoped  by 
making  great  haste,  to  reach  civilization  ahead  of  Peary  who 
was  still  in  the  north.  He  realized  the  chance  of  disappointment 
and  the  possibility  of  his  own  death  enroute.  Whitney  who  had 
been  friendly  with  Cook  since  his  arrival,  was  expecting  his 
own  ship  Jeanie  to  arrive  soon  to  take  him  home;  possibly 
ahead  of  Peary.  Considering  these  circumstances.  Cook  de- 
cided to  leave  his  instruments  and  some  documents  in  Whitney's 
care,  as  the  safer  method  of  transportation  and  also  to  lightoi 
his  own  load.  The  same  reasoning  induced  Cook  to  intrust  his 
secret  to  Whitney  so  that  in  case  he  should  die  on  his  perilous 
journey  of  700  miles,  history  would  get  his  story,  as  well  as  the 
instruments  and  documents.  Whatever  may  have  been  Cook's 
reason  that  is  what  he  did.  This  briefly  was  the  status  of 
affairs  at  Annoatok  when  Cook  departed  south  on  April  *1, 1909, 
previous  to  Peary's  return  from  the  north. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  Peary's  examinai'on  of  Cook's  two 
uskn^-Ms. 

It  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  Whitney  and  Pritchard  were 
the  only  persons  in  the  Arctic  at  this  time,  who  knew  of  Cook's 
claims  of  discovery  of  the  North  Pole.  Ahwela  and  Etukishook 
did  not  know  what  Cook  had  told  Whitney  and  Pritchard. 
They  only  knew  the  facts,  whatever  th^r  were  and  they  were  also 
pledged  to  8ecre<y.  Let  us  study  this  point.  If  Cook  had 
actually  been  to  the  Pole,  and  sincerely  wished  to  keep  it  secret 
for  the  present,  it  was  essential  that  he  shoukl  have  pledged 
these  two  Eskimos  to  secrecy  before  their  arrival  at  Annoatok. 
If  on  the  other  hand,  he  did  not  go  to  the  Pole,  there  was  no 
secret  to  be  kept,  .'and  silence  was  all  sufficient.  The  two 
Eskimos  knew  nothing  of  any  fiJse  claim  that  Cook  may  have 
had  in  mind.  They  knew  the  facts.  But  Whitney  and 
Pritchanl  knew  no  facts.    They  only  knew  what  Cook  had  said. 

It  would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Cook  would  tell 


\w- 


1 .1 

f  r 


S16 


Baa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecovered 


J 


Whitney  and  Pritchard  that  he  had  been  to  the  Pole  if  it  were 
untrue,  because  he  would  know  that  the  two  Eskhnos  could 
contradict  it  after  he  was  gone,  and  everyone  would  know  that 
he  was  plannmg  a  falsehood.  In  like  manner,  if  it  were  true  that 
Cook  had  been  to  the  Pole,  the  Eskimos  would  corroborate  it. 
(which  it  is  reported  they  afterwards  did  to  TV  .tney,  when  they 
were  hunting  with  him).  Whitn<y,  hunself,  after  remaining 
in  the  community  of  the  Eskimos  for  four  months  thereafter  i> 
reported  to  have  said,  *'I  am  perfectly  convinced  that  Cook 
went  to  the  Pole." 

The  pledges  of  secrecy  were  sacredly  kept  by  both  Whitney 
and  Pritchard.    There  is  not  a  scrap  of  evidence,  that  either 
of  them,  ever  intimated  to  anyone,  at  Annoatok  or  at  Etah, 
before  the  arrival  of  Peary,  that  they  had  received  that  news 
from  Cook.    Peary  is  reported  to  have  said  that  he  had  no 
discussion  on  the  subject  with  either  Pritchard  or  Whitney,  and 
Murphy,  who  afterwards  spent  months  in  the  same  cabin  with 
them,  says  that  not  e.  word  of  it  was  mentioned  to  him.    Later 
whoi  Cook  learned  of  Peary's  opposition  to  his  claims,  he  sent 
a  wireless  message  from  mid-ocean  that  William  Pritchard,  the 
cabio  boy  on  the  Roosevelt,  knew  of  his  going  to  the  Pole.    The 
associated  press  dispatched  Mr.  Regan,  their  agent,  to  Battle 
Harbor  to  interview  Pritchard.    Peary,  and  every  member  of 
the  crew  including  Murphy,  were  astonished,  when  they  learned 
through  Regan,  for  the  first  time  that  Pritchard  had  carried  this 
secret  mviolate.    Pritchard  even  waited  until  Regan  showed 
him   Cook's  telegram  before  he  would  answer  a  question. 
Whitney,  who  had  started  south  with  Peary,  had  left  the 
RooeeveU  at  North  Star,  (about  125  miles  south  of  Etah)  to 
join  his  own  ship  Jeanie,  (which  they  met  there),  and  did  not 
return  to  civilization  for  several  weeks  at  which  tune  he  was 
similarly  interviewed  at  Cook's  suggestion.    For  the  purpowj 
of  simplifying  this  discussion  we  can  now  eliminate,  not  only 
Cook,  but  also  Whitney  and  Pritchard,  from  further  considera- 
tion, as  they  undoubtedly  kept  theu"  promises  to  Cook.    The 


Soto  rearu  Ditcrtdited  Cook 


817 


news  about  the  Fok  ..-oTUd  not  have  been  promulgated  at  Etah 
by  these  two  men. 

Ahwela  and  Etukishocic,  Cook's  two  Eskimos,  were  then 
m  their   homes,   mingling  among   the   175   remaining   Etah 
Eskimos,  many  of  whom  are  their  relatives,  and  all  of  whom 
are  t'    '    '  lends.    These  boys  were  the  only  people  who  knew 
of  th'         els  of  Cook's  party.    If  they  did  not  go  to  the  Pole, 
such  u  8'    ject  or  thought  would  no  more  be  likely  to  enter  their 
minds,  than  would  the  coming  of  a  comet.     No  one  had  ever 
been  there,  and  at  all  events  none  of  the  Eskimos  had  ever  been 
there,  and  would  not  be  likely  to  be  mterested  in  such  specula- 
tive thoughts.     Whatever  Cook's  companions  said  about  the 
North  Pole  among  their  relatives  would  be  what  they  supposed 
to  be  the  truth.    It  is  possible  that  one  might  be  more  inclined 
than  the  other  to  be  reticent,  or  to  respect  Cook's  wishes  as  to 
secrecj-  until  Peary  passed  south.  We  may,  if  we  wish,  imagine 
in  consequence  of  this,  some  possible  difference  in  what,  or  how 
much,  each  might  have  said;  but  there  can  be  no  question 
whatever  that  only  what  they,  or  one  of  them  did  say,  became 
known.    If  either  said  he  went  to  the  Pole,  it  must  under  these 
peculiar  circumstances,  be  true,  at  least  he  must  have  supposed 
it  to  be  true;  and  even  if  the  o»her  denied  it  (out  of  respect  to 
Cook's  request)  it  would  still  very  likely  be  true.    Neither  one 
of  them  would  have  spoken  of  the  matter  without  some  reason 
for  doing  so.    What  object  would  induce  one  of  them  to  say  to 
his  own  family  that  he  had  been  to  the  Pole,  and  say  it  in  face  of 
the  contradiction  of  his  companion,  and  in  violati<xi  of  his 
pledge  to  Cook,  knowing  it  was  not  true?    If  this  news  were 
true,  it  could  not  be  kept  secret;  but  if  it  ^.ere  false,  it  wouM 
not,  and  could  not,  be  promulgated,  under  those  envirtmments 
and  conditions.    Therefore,  if  such  knowledge  got  abroad,  it 
was  at  least  true  that  one  or  the  other  of  these  Eskimos  pro- 
mulgated it.    If  cither  (rf  them  moitioned  anything  about 
having  been  to  the  North  Pole,  it  was  because  th^  thought 
they  had  been  there.    The  news  did  get  abroad  apd  Pesiy 
furnished  the  evidoice  of  that  fact 


.1.-  ^' 


SIS 


na$tlu  North  Pole  Been  Diaeotentd 


On  July  18, 1900,  the  RootevtU  with  the  Peaiy  arctic  party 
on  board,  steamed  south  from  Cape  Sheridan,  for  home.  They 
touched  at  Zerke,  Cape  Sumarez,  meeting  there  some  Eskimo 
hunters  from  Etah,  who  informed  them  of  Cook's  return,  and 
qf  his  daim  to  have  reached  the  North  Pole.  Nme  days  later, 
July  97,  the  RooaeeeU  reached  Etah,  where  Cook's  two  Eskimo 
compani(Mi8  lived.  As  was  natural,  Peary  interviewed  these 
two  Eskimos  before  departing  for  home.  Immediately  on 
reachmg  communication  with  civilization,  Peaty  flashed  the 
news  that  "Cook  should  not  be  taken  too  seriously  as  the 
Eskimos  say  he  did  not  go  far  from  land, "  and  that  as  soon  as 
the  public  sees  his  conclusive  proofs  of  Cook's  "gold  brick," 
which  he  will  publish  on  his  arrival,  there  will  be  a  universal 
opinion  that  Cook  is  a  falsifier.  This  was  the  first  public 
knowledge  of  any  dispute  or  jealousy.  Peary  was  severely 
criticised  for  the  sensational  tone  of  his  announcement.  One 
writer  said:  "It  does  not  sound  like  the  voice  of  a  scientist  with 
serene  confidence  in  the  truth  of  his  message."  Instead  of 
publishing  his  proofs  against  Cook  when  he  arrived,  Peaiy 
first  withheld  them,  then  later  presented  them  to  the  Peaiy 
Arctic  Club  for  Approval.  The  Arctic  Club  deliberated  over 
them  for  about  three  weeks.  The  entire  worid  waited  in  sus- 
pense. The  only  person  who  was  apparently  undisturbed  was 
Cook. 

It  was  annotmced  at  the  time  that  Peaty 's  proofs  against  Cook 
were  referred  by  Thomas  L.  Hubbard,  the  president,  toAnt<me 
Raven,  then  to  Herbert  L.  Bridgeman,  then  to  Zenas  Crane, 
then  to  Pariah,  members  of  the  Club.  Th^  spoit  several 
weeks  struggling  over  the  predicamoit  in  which  they  were  so 
innoomtly  placed.  Peary  had  given  such  extravagant  assur- 
ances, that  there  was  no  way  of  escape.  They  must  concoct 
something  for  the  Eskimos  to  say,  and  then  screw  up  sufficioit 
sourage  to  permit  iti  publicati(m.  How  to  formulate  such  a 
statement  in  an  attempt  to  prove  Cook  a  falsifier,  and  not  at 
the  same  time  incidentally  prove  him  to  be  an  actual  discoverer* 
was  a  puzile.    Th^  finaJly  i^reed  upon  an  evasive,  tni«l»t^iTig 


How  Peary  Diacrediied  Cook 


SIO 


quibble,  which  was  launched  aa  Peaiy's  production.  The  day 
after  its  publicaticm,  the  press  of  the  world  had  cartoons  of 
"the  Mountain  laboured  and  brought  forth  a  Mouse."  The 
statement  was  instantly  dropped  from  sight.  It  is  only  resur- 
rected now,  for  post-mortem  purposes. 

These  so  cdled  proofs  contain  first  a  statement  from  Peary 
as  follows:*  "On  my  return  from  Cape  Sheridan  and  at  the 
veiy  first  settlement  I  touched  (Zerke,  near  Cape  Chalqn)  in 
August,  1900,  and  nine  days  before  reaching  Etah,  the  Eskimos 
told  me,  in  a  general  way  where  Dr.  Cook  had  been;  that  he 
had  wintered  in  Jones's  Sound  and  that  he  had  told  the  white 
men  at  Etah  that  he  had  been  a  long  way  North,  but  that  the 
boys  who  were  with  him,  Etuldshook  and  Ahwelah,  said  that 
this  was  not  so.  The  Eskimos  laughed  at  Dr.  Cook's  story. 
On  reaching  Etah,  I  talked  with  the  Eskimos  there  and  with  the 
two  boys  and  asked  them  to  describe  Dr.  Cook's  journey  to 
members  of  my  party  and  myself.  This  they  did  in  the  manner 
stated  below. 

(Signed)  R.  E.  Peart." 

This  ambiguity  has  an  ominous  appearance  at  the  start. 
He  says  he  heard  this  in  a  graieral  way,  i.  e.  not  in  a  definite 
way,  not  in  a  clear,  positive,  unequivocal  way.  Pfeary  and  his 
men  were  all  risking  their  lives  for  the  sole  purpose  of  dis- 
covering the  North  Pole.  But  when  the  news  that  their  goal 
had  been  achieved  by  another  during  Uieir  absence,  was  men- 
ticmed  m  that  lonely  place,  th^  casually  listened  to  its  being 
toM  "in  a  general  way"  and  the  information  they  obtained  was 
so  indefinite  and  vague,  that  it  could  not  be  more  cleariy  stated 
than  in  the  quotation  above!  This  statemoit  when  published, 
it  must  be  remembered  had  been  revised,  so  as  to  furnish  the 
final  pro(rf]aa  to  who  was,'and*who  was  not,  the  actual  discoverer 
of  the  Pole! 

Read  it  careful!.  Ahwelah  and  Etuldshook  "said  tiiat 
this  was  not  so. "  That  is;  these  two  boys,  the  <Hily  two  perstms 
from  whom  such  information  could  possibly  come,  are  placed  in 
*Ib  aU  dailjr  papen. 


820 


Haa  the  Nnrih  Poh  Seen  Dueomred 


I 


the  attitude  of  having  to  deny  a  current  assertion,  and  a  rumor 
about  themselves  in  a  vain  attempt  to  prevent  it  from  making 
headway  in  a  community  whei'e  no  one  would  entertain  it  for 
a  moment  unless  it  issued  from  them,  or  had  their  approval. 
The  presumption  of  such  an  absurdity,  surely  condemns  this 
part  of  the  statemoit.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  it  makes  but 
little  difference,  in  what  phraseology  the  Peary  Arctic  Club 
chose  to  put  this  statement  forward.  The  one  viial  fati,  leaps 
inevitably  to  the  front:  the  knowledge  that  the  Cook  expedition 
had  reached  the  Pole  was  abroad  in  Annoatok  and  Etah  before 
Peary  reached  there  on  his  return  from  the  North.  It  was 
knowledge  not  hearsay.  If  Peary  did  actually  hear  what  he 
says  he  heard  at  Zerke,  it  could  only  huve  come  cniginally  from 
one  or  the  other,  or  both  of  the  two  Cook  Eskimos.  Experience 
was  the  only  way  for  them  to  get  this  news. 

Has  Peaiy  stated  exactly  what  he  heard?  Whai  does  he 
mean  by  "told  in  a  general  way"  and  "a  long  way  North?" 
What  did  the  two  Eskimos  actually  say  "was  not  so"?  The 
inference  from  Peary's  statement  is,  if  put  into  plain  language, 
that  these  jjoople  at  Zerke  whom  Peary  met,  told  him  unequivo- 
cally, that  Dr.  Cook  had  returned  and  gcme  on  south,  and  that 
while  at  Annoatok  he  told  Whitney  and  Pritchard  that  he  had 
been  to  the  Pole.  But  as  soon  as  Cook's  companions  Ahwela 
and  Etukishook  heard  of  it,  they  both  said  it  was  not  true,  that 
they  did  not  go  to  the  Pole.  Peary's  language  clearly  implies 
that  Ahwela  and  Etukishook  voluntarily  said  that  neither  they 
nor  Cook  had  been  to  the  North  Pole.  If  Peary  does  not  infer 
this,  he  infers  nothing;  and,  therefore,  there  \^as  no  occasion 
for  his  saying  anything. 

Let  us  assume  that  this  document  means  what  it  infers; 
not  what  it  says,  because  it  says  nothing.  Peaiy,  or  rather  the 
revised  and  censored  statement,  prevaricates  and  evades,  but 
does  not  say  that  Cook  told  Whitney  or  Pritchard  anything,  at 
Annoatok.  He  says  he  told  "the  white  men  at  Etah"  and  as 
there  were  none  at  Etah,  that  means  nobody.  He  does  not  say 
that  Cook  said  he  went  to  the  North  Pole,  but  "a  long  way 


How  Peary  Discredited  Cook 


S21 


North. "  This  is  disAembling  and  deceptive,  but  not  necessarily 
false.  Ti.  1  the  hoys  said  "this  was  not  so."  This  means 
nothing.  It  may  indicate  that  Cook  didn't  say  a  "long  way 
North"  or  that  he  didn't  say  anything;  or  what  he  did  say,  he 
didn't  say  "to  white  men."  Then,  the  Eskimos  told  him 
about  this  subject  "in  a  general  way,"  not  distinctly,  not 
directly,  not  ijositively,  that  is  to  say,  they  did  not  say  a  word 
which  cau  be  disputed.  And  that  is  true.  It  is  essential  to 
refer  in  this  manner,  to  this  seemingly  ridiculous  performance, 
in  order  to  imderstand  it.s  object,  and  get  the  true  situation. 

Disregarding  the  ambiguity  of  the  expressions,  we  are, 
nevertheless  face  to  face  with  facts.  One  thing  is  true.  The 
news  that  Cook's  expedition  had  been  to  ihe  Pole  was  abroad 
at  Etah  and  vicinity  and  it  originated  through  the  only  channel 
{Mssible,  viz.  one  (or  both)  of  the  two  Cook  Eskimos.  It  would 
have  been  impossible  for  Peary  to  hear  something  nm-existent. 
All  writers  on  Eskimofi'  traits  are  agreed  that  Eskimos  amcmg 
themselves,  are  truthful.  It  would  be  hard  to  conceive  of  any 
race  of  men,  who  would  have  acted  differently  from  these 
Eskimos,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed. 
Cook  had  returned  to  his  friends.  The  Eskimos  were  among 
their  friends.  Cook  had  requested,  for  his  own  purposes,  not 
theirs,  that  they  keep  a  secret  for  him  until  his  purposes  were 
accomplished.  The  only  object  of  the  secrecy  was  obviously 
to  keep  it  from  Peary  imtil  he  arrived  at  civilization.  This 
they  were  willing  to  pledge  themselves  to  do,  but  what  harm 
in  telling  it  to  their  family,  and  to  their  immediate  friends  in 
the  Arctic?  It  would  be  natural  for  them  to  do  so,  and  that  is 
undoubtedly  what  they  did.  They  did  not  reason,  or  calculate, 
or  realize  the  consequences  of  their  gossip  nor  did  they  expect 
♦hat  in  si^ch  a  wonderfully  accidental  way,  the  news  would 
reach  Peaiy,  before  he  arrived  at  Etah.  However,  they  told 
it,  no  one  else  could  tell  it.  The  news  was  already  spread 
through  the  tribe  of  175  Etah  Eskimos  then  at  home,  and 
Peary  heard  it  at  Zerke. 

The  aoiy  object  Peary  had  in  questioomg  Cook's  Eakimos 


*,xip 


s« 


Hat  th(t  North  PoU  Been  Dieeomed 


iC 


.1 

1     I        NSNHRi 


WM  to  see  if  they  would  deny  that  they  had  been  to  the  Pole: 
if  they  would  contradict  (-ook**  reported  statement.  Peary 
did  not  want  to  procure  the  truth  of  Cook's  story  for  science, 
or  for  histoiy.  He  wanted  them  to  contradict  it.  That  is  all 
he  could  have  wanted.  He  was  on  his  way  to  civilization  to 
make  his  own  claims,  stopping  for  a  week  where  Cook's  two 
boys  lived.  He  knew  them  personally.  What  explanation 
should  he  make  when  he  reached  home,  and  was  questioned  by 
Cook  as  to  what  they  said?  Should  he  .  ^y  they  confirmed  his 
statement,  or  that  they  contradicted  it?  He  must  say  <Hie 
thing  or  the  other,  as  he  had  seen  them  since  Cook  had  left 
them.  If  the  answer  had  been  unsatisfactory  or  an'Mguous,  or 
showed  a  disposition  aa  the  part  of  the  Eskimos  to  conceal  the 
truth,  Peary  could  .  nd  would  have  followed  it  with  other 
questions,  in  an  effort  to  L  ing  out  clearly  tJie  real  truth.  He 
could  have  cross-examined  them  and  would  have  learned  the 
truth. 

He  learned  the  truth,  no  doubt.  If  the  Eskimos  had  con- 
tradicted it,  Peaiy  would  undoubtedly  bx^'e  blazoned  it  in  the 
skies  if  possible,  where  all  the  world  might  see  it.  If  he  could 
not  truthfully  say  tL  v  ccMitradicted  it,  must  ' 


<< 


>cesjarily 

,        He 

md 


<■n^..alce 


tell  the  truth,  and  sa>  they  a*^rmed  it?  Nof 
coiild  prevaricate;  he  could  dissemble,  he  could  e*/. 
this  is  exactly  what  he  did.  There  could  not  be  he» 
that  they  supported  Cook  in  his  claims.  It  is  an  tix.yxi,  that 
"he  who  p\ades  a  question  ostensibly  answers  it."  The 
omission  to  say  it  was  contradicted  is  an  admission  that  it  was 
affirmed.  Peary  could  have  pursued  no  other  course  than  he 
did,  in  view  of  the  truth,  unless  he  was  rea«'v  to  surreni'  '^  the 
h<HU)rs  voluntarily  to  Cook. 

The  truth  must  stand «  very  test.  If  Dr.  Cook  went  to  the 
Pole,  these  two  Eskimos  went  to  the  Pole.  Regardless  of  what 
they  may  or  may  not  say,  they  both  knew  whether  they  wsit 
there  or  not,  or  at  least  they  thought  they  knew.  It  will  now 
be  assumed  that  they  did  not  go  there,  but  turned  back  at  the 
4th  polar  camp.    Cook  and  these  Eskimos  when  they  arrivv<Ml 


Hoto  Feary  Ditcredited  Cook  888 

V-.I 

•t  nnoatok  had  definite  knowledKe  of  their  position.  Othen 
mil-  lit  be  deceived  by  falne  claims,  but  none  of  these  could. 
UiHler  these  circumstances.  Cook  would  not  tell  his  Eskimos 
on  his  arrival  at  Am  tatok  that  they  had  been  to  the  Pole. 
For  obviously  similar  r^'asons,  he  would  not  tell  them  they  had 
not  l)een  there.  One  statement  would  have  been  as  absurd 
as  the  other.  It  is  safe  to  assume,  therefore,  that  he  toU  them 
neither  story,  because  there  would  have  been  no  reascm  for  his 
doing  so.  If  he  told  them  nothing,  they  ctmld  know  nothing 
about  any  false  claims  he  intende*!  to  make  when  h^  reached 
civilizatimi.  It  siurely  was  not  his  purpose  to  deceive  the  Eski- 
mos! Cook,  therefore,  did  not  tell  them;  Whitney  did  not  tell 
them;  Pritchard  did  not  tell  them,  who  could  tell  thtm?  No- 
body. And  nobody  did  tell  them.  And  nobody  says  that 
anybody  did.  They  could  not  know,  nor  even  have  heard,  of 
any  such  claims,  intending  to  be  made  by  Cook.  This  is  logical, 
and  true,  and  shows  ccmclusively  that  any  other  situation  was 
absolutely  impossible  under  our  hypothesis.  Not  onf  Eskimo 
in  th&t  country,  at  that  time,  could  have  known  of  such  a  claim, 
if  these  two  Eskimos  had  not  supposed  it  to  be  true  and  told  it 
themselves.  It  could  only  be  known,  if  true,  or  supposed  to  be 
true.  But  the  claim  was  known.  There  must  be  some  error 
in  our  premises,  the  demcmstration  is  as  clear,  simple,  and 
scunu  as  that  two  and  two  make  four.  There  can  be  but  one 
iiror.  93  we  started  out  with  only  one  premise;  and  that 
•>r^.->.i^e  and  that  error  are  in  the  assiunption  that  these 
two  Eskimos  did  not  go  to  the  Pole.  They  must,  therefore, 
have  gone  there  or  thought  that  they  went  there,  because  they 
c<  ju;  not  tell  what  they  did  not  know,  and  since  it  was  told,  it 
must  have  been  they  who  told  it.  They  toid  what  they  knew 
(or  supposed  they  knew).  This  conclusion  is  irresistible  and 
unavoidable. 

Let  us  assume  now  that  the  two  Eskimos  did  go  to  the  Pole. 
If  they  went  to  the  Pole,  Cook  went  also.  They  would  not 
imder  these  circumstances,  on  arrival  at  AnnoatoV,  need  to 
remind  each  other  of  it.    They  all  knew  it,  although  they  might 


1 


324 


Hat  the  No  th  Pole  Been  Diacocered 


Fjtv 


# 


not  tell  it.  Cook  was  anxious  to  announce  the  news  when  he 
reached  civilization;  possibly  the  Eskimos  were  just  as  anxious 
to  tell  of  it  in  uncivilization;  but  either  could  suppress  the 
information  if  he  wanted  to,  and  would  do  so  undoubtedly  if  he 
desired.  Cook  did  desire  to  suppress  it  for  a  limited  time  as  a 
safe  guard.  The  Eskimos  had  no  such  reason.  It  would  have 
been  useless  for  Cook  to  commit  Whitney  to  secrecy,  aud  not 
Pritchard;  and  equally  useless  to  pledg?  both  white  men  and 
leave  the  two  Eskimos  free  to  divulge  it.  He,  therefore, 
commits  them  all  to  secrecy,  until  Peary  passes  south.  This  is 
undisputed.  Thus  the  information  al>out  the  Pole  is  locked  up. 
as  far  as  the  Arctic  is  concerned,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  our 
first  iiypothesis.  Nobody  in  the  Arctic  knows  a  word  as  to 
what  Cook  will  claim,  (excluding  from  consideration  Whitney 
and  Pritchard,  who  kept  their  pledges).  Peary,  on  his  return 
from  Cape  Sheridan  infers  that  nine  days  before  he  reached  Etah 
he  was  told  that  Cook  had  retiuned,  and  claimed  to  have  been 
to  the  North  Pole.  No  one  could  have  given  out  that  knowl- 
edge but  those  who  had  it;  viz.,  the  two  Cook  Eskimos.  If 
they  gave  it  out,  they  had  it  to  give  out. 

This  solves  the  mystery  as  in  our  first  hypothesis,  Peary  and 
the  Peary  Arctic  Club,  may  have  thought  that  the  actual  facts 
were  perfectly  concealed  in  the  evasive  phraseology  of 
their  skillful  statement.  It  does  not  make  a  particle 
of  difference  what  Unguage  is  used,  or  what  was  said,  or 
not  said.  One  vital  FACT  is  disckned.  Peary  can 
truthfully  deny  having  made  a  single  positive  statement  re- 
garding this  matter.  But  he  cannot  deny  having  had  presented 
to  him,  nine  days  before  reaching  Etah,  the  important  fact 
that  the  report  was  abroad  in  the  Arctic  that  Cook  and  his 
Eskimos  had  been  to  the  North  Pole.  The  existence  of  that 
knowledge,  as  has  been  shown,  is  of  itself  convincing  evidence 
of  its  truth.  Peaiy  has  proven,  that  knowledge  of  Cook's  going 
to  the  Pole,  was  given  out  voluntarily,  by  his  companions  to 
their  families,  or  relatives  in  Etah,  and  we  have  ^own  th^t 
the  circumstances  were  such  that  it  could  not  have  been  knowl- 


tm 


Hou>  Peary  Diacrediied  Cook 


edge,  unless  it  were  true  ot  supposed  to  be  true.  Having  proven 
this  by  Peary's  first  report,  we  will  now  try  to  corroborate  it  by 
his  report  <A  his  examination  of  the  Cook  Eskimos  at  Etah,  and 
later  by  the  acts  of  the  Peaty  Arctic  Club  in  New  York. 

The  comment  which  the  Peaiy  examiners  made  and 
published  in  the  daily  papers  is  interesii:ig  as  a  preliminary  to 
the  questions  themselves.    Here  it  is: 

"During  the  taking  of  this  testimony,  it  developed  that 
Dr.  Cook  had  told  these  boys,  as  he  told  Mr.  Whitney  and 
Billy  Pritchard,  the  cabin  boy,  tLat  th^  must  not  tell  Com- 
mv^der  Peaiy  or  any  of  us  anjrthing  about  their  journey,  and 
the  boys  stated  Dr.  Cook  had  threatened  them  if  they  should 
tell  anything." 

"After  sleeping  at  the  camp  where  the  last  two  Eskimos 
turned  back,  Dr.  Cook  and  the  two  boys  went  in  a  northerly  or 
northwesterly  direction  with  two  sledges  and  twenty  dogs,  one 
more  march  when  thej'  encountered  rough  ice  and  a  ^Etd  of 
open  water.  They  did  not  enter  this  rough  ice,  or  cross  the 
lead,  but  turned  westward  to  Heiberg  Land  at  a  point  west  of 
where  they  had  left  the  cache  and  where  the  four  men  turned 
back. 

"Here  they  remained  foiir  or  five  sleeps  and  during  that 
time,  Etukishook  went  back  to  the  cache  and  got  his  gun  which 
iae  had  :3ft  there,  and  a  few  items  of  supplies. 

"When  asked  why  only  a  few  supplies  were  tak«i  from  the 
cache,  the  boys  replied  that  only  a  small  amount  of  provisions 
had  been  used  in  the  few  days  since  they  left  the  cache,  and  that 
their  sledges  still  had  ail  th^  could  carry  so  that  they  could  not 
take  more.  After  being  informed  of  the  boy's  narrative  thus 
far.  Commander  Peary  suggested  a  series  of  questions  to 
put  to  the  boys,  in  regard  to  this  trip  from  the  land  out 
and  back  to  it." 

The  above  sentences  contain  only  information  given  by 
the  examiners,  on  a  narrative  made  by  the  Eskimos.  It  does 
not  even  piurp^t  to  be  the  lutrrative  itself.  No  questi<ma 
are  shown,  or  answers  given  to  show  how  this  information  was 
reached. 

The  report  does  not  say  who  asked  the  questions.    That 


=JtM 


826 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


W 


^1.  ( 


If,. 

lii' 


part  is  kept  secret.  The  answers  were  given  by  Ahwela  or 
Etuldshook,  or  both;  but  by  which  of  them  the  report  does  not 
show.  These  omissions  were  necessary  for  full  immunity  to 
Peary.  The  following  are  all  the  alleged  questions  put  to 
Cook's  Eskimos  and  all  their  alleged  answers. 

QUBSTIONB  ANO  ANSWERS 

1 .  Did  they  cross  any  open 
leads  or  much  water 
dxiring  this  time? 

Ans.    None. 

2.  pid  they  make  any  caches  out  on  the 
ice? 

Ans.    No. 
S.    Did  they  kill  any  bear  or  seal  while 
out  on  the  ice  north  of  Cape  Thomas 
Hubbard? 
Ans.    No. 

4.  With  how  many  sledges  did  they 
start? 

Ans.    Two. 

5.  How  many  dogs  did  they  have? 

Ans.    Did  not  remember  exactly,  but 
something  over  20. 

6.  How  many  sledges  did  they  have 
when  ihey  got  back  to  land? 

Ans.    Two, 

7.  Did  they  have  any  provisions  left 
on  their  sledges  when  they  came  back 
to  land? 

Ans.     Yes. 

There  is  not  a  word  in  those  questions  or  answers  that 
corroborates  either  of  Peary's /our  statements  as  to  where  Cook 
turned  back.  Not  a  word  of  inquiry  made  in  an  endeavor  to 
ascertain  where  Cook  went.  Not  a  word  is  uttered  that  indi- 
cates that  anybody  in  Etah  knew  that  "Cook  had  told  the 
white  men"  anything.  Not  a  word  about  "a  tong  way  North" 
or  the  "NoHh  PoU." 

^'et  tliis  inquisition  was  held  at  the  only  place  where  such 
u  rec,:-d  K.uld  have  l)een  made.    The  Eskimos  had  no  (^por- 


J7oic  Peary  DiicrtdUtd  Cook 


847 


ttinity  to  affinn  or  deny  the  claim  that  they  had  beoi  to  the 
North  Pole,  because  the  question  was  not  asked.  This  is  strange 
and  appears  significant. 

Whether  these  two  Cook  Eskimos  were  informed  of  what 
Peaiy  had  heard  at  Zerke  from  the  hunters,  is  not  reported,  and 
is  immaterial.  They  must  have  realized  their  embarrassing 
position  for  they  told  Peary,  so  he  says,  of  their  pledge  to 
Cook,  not  to  tcJl  him  where  they  did  go.  They  must  also,  at 
the  same  time  have  observed  the  jealousy,  manifested  by 
Peaiy.  If  by  agreement  they  were  not  asked  whethc  they  went 
to  the  Pole;  if  they  had  said  to  Peary  what  he  wanted  than  to 
say,  thiAt  th^  weat  a  short  distance  from  land,  th^ 
kept  thor  pronuse  to  Cook,  and  thdr  friendship  with  both. 
But  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  wid  even  that.  If  it  be 
a  fact  that  they  actually  had,  before  Peary's  arrival  technical- 
ly broken  thdr  promise  to  Cook  by  telling  some  friend  that 
they  wait  to  the  Pole,  it  was  probably  because  they  could 
not  help  it,  or  Mt  no  neoesuty,  or  saw  no  great  importance  in 
with-h<dding  such  a  burning  secret  any  l<mger,  now  Cook  was 
g<Mie.* 

Having  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Cook  claimed  to  have 
been  to  the  Pole,  it  is  presumed  that  Peary  did  not  strain  himself 
aeriously,  in  urging  the  Eskimos  to  repeat  it  too  often,  or  too 
loudly  in  the  pretence  of  the  rest  oi  his  party.f    He  may  have 

*Cook  mri  the  nib^tct  wh  genend  knowledge  at  Zerke  when  he  and 
Koolootnuwah  pnwed  tluoiigfa  on  nk  way  home. 

fPoeably  Whitney  may  have  at  this  time  let  out  the  secret  to  Peaiy. 
Henion  faidicatee  b  hu  book  under  date  of  August  17,  1009,  in  rather  an  am- 
biguous  way  that  idien  Whitney  came  on  board  the  RooMM^at  Etah  he  violated 
Codc'iocnuMaBoetoIVaryMidfaveout  thesecn-t  about  Code's  reaching  the  P^. 

Publidied  interviews  with  Fmry  since  his  return  to  civiliaation  giv*  vaiioua 
versions  aa  to  whether  or  not  Whitney  said  anytiung  about  Cook's  chums. 
But  WUtaey  was  sUaoded  and  in  a  similar  potkiaa  to  that  of  Rudotf  Francke 
th..'  year  before.  He  must  return  with  Pauy  on  the  Rootnlt  or  await  the  arrival 
of  his  own  relief  ctaft  hiter.  When  P^sary  Warned  that  Whitney  had  m  his 
trunk  some  instrumoita  mkI  documents  belonging  to  Cook  he  refused  tu  idlow 
him  passage  until  he  had  left  behind  evrrvtung  belonging  to  Cook.  Hmce 
Bartlett  and  Whitney  took  them  ashoi*  and  cached  thiem  in  tiie  rocks  at  Etah. 
If  Peary  had  so  desired  he  rould  have  put  categoriGal  queetions  to  Whitney  aa 
to  what  he  knew  regardiu  Cook's  duma  and  demaaoed  categorical  anawars 
upon  penalty  if  refiued  of  remainmg  in  Etah.  Anjrway  we  omy  with  safetv 
admit  upon  Peary's  arrival  at  Etah  that  he  teamed  from  Whitney  that  Cook 
had  told  him  be  had  been  to  the  Pole.  With  this  profaaMe  knowtedge.  he 
proceeded  with  the  iaquisitioo. 


818 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecocered 


¥■'•' 


Strictly  limited  the  interviews  between  them,  and  undoubtedly 
dictated  the  character  of  the  questions  that  should  be  asked, 
and  what  answer  should  be  recorded,  and  what  omitted.  All 
this,  if  skillfully  managed,  left  smooth  sailing  for  both  sides. 
The  Esknios  may  have  answered  the  questions  put  to  them 
in  the  way  they  are  reported  by  the  Peaiy  Arctic  Club. 

It  must  be  conceded,  however,  that  the  question  "Did you 
go  to  the  Pole?  "  was  asked  by  some  one,  and  the  answer  known. 
Peaiy  was  not  obliged  to  publish  any  more  of  the 
questions  or  answers  than  he  wished,  but  this  one  question  had 
to  be  asked.  He  does  not  report  such  a  question,  but 
it  was  asked.  It  was  essential.  It  was  the  only  object 
of  asking  them  anything.  Even  if  the  answer  was  pUm 
and  unequivocal,  it  stUl  need  not  be  published;  but  the  question 
was  asked,  nevertheless  and  was  answered.  No  one  can  deny 
this  si-iccessfuUy,  because  no  one  with  an  ounce  of  inteUigence 
would  have  omitted  it.  It  would  be  preposterous  to  even 
intisoiate  the  possibility  of  omitting  it. 

K  the  answer  had  been  "No,  "Peaiy  would  have  published 
it  in  his  report.  This  also  must  be  conceded.  Because  it  is 
omitted  from  the  report,  the  answer  must  have  been  "Yes." 
One  may  search  the  report  from  end  to  end  and  read  between 
lines,  he  wiU  find  no  question  asked,  that  gave  those  boys 
the  slightest  opportunity  to  say  whether  or  not  they  went  to  the 
Pole.    This  was  the  sole  object  of  the  exammation. 

Did  Peary  want  to  know,  or  did  he  not  care  whether  in 
truth  it  was  a  nunor,  or  a  fact,  that  Cook  was  actually  claiming, 
or  proposed  to  claim  that  he  had  been  to  the  North  Pole  a  year 
previous?  Did  Peary  not  want  to  protect  the  civilized  world 
against  such  a  monstrous  fraud,  when  it  was  so  easily  in  his 
power  t»  do  so,  and  by  so  doing  safeguard  his  own  fame 
as  a  discoverer?  Is  this  omission  not  significant?  Do  not 
Peary's  actions  and  his  omissions  plainly  sustam  every  position 


How  Peary  Ducredited  Cook 


S29 


herein  maintained,  that  Cook's  Eskimos  went  to  the  Pole,  or 
thought  that  they  did;  that  they  told  it;  tliat  they  could  not  be 
induced  to  deny  it?*  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Peary  made 
such  a  meaningless  inquisition,  it  cannot  be  said  he  was  in- 
different.    The  report  shows  that  he  was  desperate. 

Suppose  the  answer  was  "No,  we  did  not  go  to  the  Pole," 
what  then?  What  would  Peary,  and  his  allies  have  done  in 
such  a  case?  Would  they  have  suppressed  it?  Would  they 
have  drawn  a  blue  pencil  through  that  question  and  that 
answer,  after  it  was  recorded,  and  report  in  its  stead  such  a 
foolish  question  in  the  circumstances  and  answer  as:  "Did 
you  kill  any  bear  or  seal  while  out  on  the  ice  north  of  Cape 
Thomas  Hubbard?"    Ans.  "No"? 

This  is  impossible  and  imworthy  of  belief.  The  evidence 
is  conclusive,  that  the  question  was  asked  and  answered  "Yes, 
we  went  to  the  Pole."  This  is  a  consistent  explanation  of  the 
reason  for  writing  this  wonderfully  deceptive  report.  Every 
question  and  every  answer  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  this 
conclusion.  There  is,  evidently,  a  thoroughly  worked  out 
design  in  this  otherwise  apparently  foolish  report.  Every 
possible  contingency,  as  to  its  falsity,  every  safeguard  for  im- 
munity, even  the  possibility  of  detection,  has  been  anticipated. 
The  world  may  be  safely  challenged  to  find  any  other  consistent 
theory. 

On  that  answer,  hinges  everything  at  issue.  That  u  why 
it  is  not  published.  If  they  answered  "Yes,  we  went  to  the 
Pole,"  Peaiy  was  undoubtedly  disappointed,  jealous.  It 
would  be  only  human  for  him  to  be  so.  But  if  it  be  a  fact  that 
could  not  he  refuted,  he  must  face  it  as  best  he  can,  or  break  its 
force  by  an  attempt  to  discredit  it.  If  the  answer  was  "Yes, 
we  went  to  the  Pole,"  he  probably  did  what  he  thought  best 
for  his  own  end.    His  interest  was  intense.    What  he  actually 

'Whitney  wm  not  admitted  to  the  inqui:iition,  but  he  mvh  he  "  understood  " 
that  the  Eakimos  fefuaed  to  deny  having  been  to  the  Pole  ancf  that  they  couM  not 
comprehend  what  Peary  wanted  them  to  aay.  If  they  had  been*  compelled 
under  auch  influence  to  deny  that  they  went  to  the  Pole,  it  would  have  signified 
nothing. 


880 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


did  do  is  consistent  with  the  answer  "Yes,"     and  is  strong 
evidence  that  such  was  the  answer. 

Why  such  a  senseless  report  was  ever  given  to  the 
public  by  the  Peary  Arctic  Club,  who  knew  it  was  a  fiasco, 
would  indeed  be  hard  to  comprehend,  if  we  did  not  already 
know  that  it  was  a  choice  of  evils.  They  undoubtedly  knew 
that  a  false  charge  had  impulsively  been  made  over  the  wire- 
less by  Peary,  to  retract  which  would  be  fatal.  They  obviously 
thought  that  with  some  explanation  (however  futile)  the  affair 
would  opiy  be  at  worst,  a  fizzle.  These  puerile,  meaningless 
questions  and  answers  are  absolutely  all  the  evidence  that  has 
ever  been  produced  that  Cook  did  not  reach  the  Pole. 
This  constitutes  the  great  thunderbolt  laimched  by  Peaiy  to 
show  that  Cook's  claim  of  having  reached  the  Pole  was  a  "gold 
brick."  Every  word  of  it  was  obtained  by  Cook's  competitor 
— every  word  is  exparte,  hearsay.  (Whitney,  the  only 
disinterested  white  man  in  the  coimtry,  was  not  called  in  to 
witness  it  although  he  was  on  the  ship) .  This  is  the  sole  evidence 
on  which  Cook  has  been  condemned  as  the  greatest  deceiver  and 
fraud  the  world  has  yet  produced.  But  the  truth  is  saf^usrded 
in  so  many  natural  ways  that  it  cannot  be  smothered,  and 
the  knowledge  then  abroad  at  Etah,  may  m  time  be  world  wide. 

The  record  made  in  New  York  agrees  perfectly  with  the 
theories  advanced  as  to  the  record  made  at  Zerke  and  Etah. 
Peary  knew,  and  the  Peaiy  Arctic  Club  probably  knew  that  the 
Eskimos  said  that  Cook  went  to  the  Pole,  and  that  eventually 
it  would  be  known  universally.  If  they  did  not  know  it,  they 
wen  submissive  tools  of  Peary's  will.  He  may  only  have  told 
them  what  he  wished  them  to  know,  and  compelled  them  to  be 
satisfied.  But  they  were  not  blind.  If  they  did  not  know, 
they  should  have  known.  Only  a  fool  could  have  been  ignorant 
of  the  puipose  of  the  distorted  information  furnished  by  Peary. 
These  Club  members  were  intelligent,  influential  and  prominent. 
They  must  have  viewed  with  open  eyes,  and  certain  knowledge, 
this  transparent  masquerade.  Yet  they  have  given  their 
names  and  influence  to  this  obvious  imposture  with  apparently 


How  Ptary  DiscmtUed  Cook 


831 


full  intent  to  fasten  the  deception  (if  it  be  a  deception)  forever 
upon  the  civilized  world. 

The  most  ingenious  person  who  ever  lived  could 
not  have  so  perfectly  and  skillfully  concealed  the  truth 
without  the  facts  before  him.  These  men,  Peaiy,  Bartlett, 
Borup,  McMillan  and  Henson  who  signed  the  report,  with 
Hubbard,  Bridgman,  Raven,  Parish,  and  Crane,  who  are  re- 
ported to  have  revised  and  issued  it,  can  all  plead  not  guilty  of 
falsehood,  or  of  promulg&tmg  falsely  stated  facts  and  be  ac- 
quitted, 8o  perfectly  is  their  work  accomplished.  These  men 
may  have  deceived,  but  they  have  not  actually  misHlated  facts. 
They  knew  all  the  facts,  and  anticipated  them  all  (i^mpletely. 
No  doubt  they  employed  skillful  lawyers  during  those  weeks 
to  cover  eveiy  possible  contingency.  There  is  nothing  more 
that  it  is  necessary  to  show.  The  truth,  the  facts,  that  are 
disclosed  by  this  report  will  cmivince  any  unprejudiced  mind 
that  Cook's  Eskimos  said  he  wait  to  the  Pole.  On  no  other 
theoiy  or  hypothesis  can  these  strange  coincidences  and  per- 
versions be  explained. 

H«re  is  an  instance  where  the  evidence  of  these  two 
Eskimos,  which  under  ordinary  circumstances  would  be  con- 
sidered valueless,  is  more  important  as  it  stands  and  more 
convincing  than  would  be  the  testimony  of  ary  white  man, 
who  could  have  accompanied  Cook,  simply  because  it  is  spon- 
taneous, natural,  and  improbable  of  error.  A  whitft  man 
might  have  been  induced  to  lie  for  sufficient  consideration;  and 
even  though  he  told  a  perfectly  true  and  straight-forward  story,  it 
still  might  be  doubted,  as  he  would  be  an  mt^ested  party. 
But  these  are  ignorant  Eskimos,  without  ambition,  and  with- 
out k)ve  of  glory,  who  are  praised  universally  for  thew  truth- 
fubess  among  themselves,  who  tell  then-  relatives  and  neighbors 
a  thing  they  could  not  potwibly  ever  have  dreamed  of,  had  it 
not  been  true.  They  tell  it  io  Peaiy.  This  evidence  under 
these  circumstances  is  so  convincing,  and  so  satisfactory,  that 
it  cannot    be    doubted    by    unprejudiced    minda.    Nothing 


sss 


Has  the  North  PoU  Been  Discovered 


that  Cook  has  said,  nothing  that  any  of  his  friends 
have  said,  nothing  that  can  be  dovetailed  together  to  form  a 
connected  story  is  so  absolutely  convincing  as  this  testunony, 
which  has  been  so  providentially  unearthed  by  Peary. 

We  may  now  review  this  subject  briefly  from  an  entirely 
different  standpoint.  The  only  possible  way  for  Peary  to  dis- 
credit Cook's  claim  of  having  reached  the  Pole  was  to 
show,  if  he  could,  that  Cook  timied  back  before  he  went 
that  far  north.  It  is,  of  course  a  truism  that  if  Cook  did  not 
go  to  the  Pole,  he  must  have  turned  back  at  some  point  on  the 
Polar  Sea,  this  side  the  Pole.  If  he  did  turn  back,  can  that 
point  be  located  by  anything  that  has  been  said?  Peary,  the 
only  person  who  has  attempted  to  locate  it,  has  made  at  least 
four  different  statements  designating  the  point  where  Cook's 
Eskimos  said  they  turned  back.  The  crux  of  the  whole  prob- 
lem as  to  who  is  tfie  «liscoverer  of  the  North  Pole  (if  it  has 
been  discovered)  lies  hidden  in  these  FOUR  statements. 
Can  the  tnith  be  found?  In  view  of  the  great  importance  of 
this  point,  we  can  well  afford  to  give  the  examination  of  these 
statements  close  attention. 

Immedialely  upon  reaching  the  wireless  station  ut  Indian 
Harbor,  Labrador,  Peary  announced  his  own  alleged  discovery. 
His  next  message  was  "Cook  should  not  be  taken  too  serioiuly, 
his  Eskimos  say  he  did  not  go  Far  from  Land. "  This  was 
interesting,  bv.t  the  public  clamored  for  details.  The  word 
'FAR"  was  too  ind^nite  to  satisfy  an  impatient  civilisation 
who  were  at  that  time  intensely  interested  in  Cook,  and  were 
preparing  to  honor  him  on  his  arrival  in  New  York  (then  en- 
route)  from  Denmark. 

A  second  dispatch  but  slightly  allayed  public  curiosity, 
because  it  defined  that  distance  from  land  by  adding  that  Cook 
only  went "  TWO  SLEEPS  from  land. "  This  as  may  be  imagined, 
was  insufficient  to  satisfy  the  craving  of  eager  reporters,  who,  in 
order  to  locate  the  exact  spot  and  to  check  it  on  Cook's  alleged 
route,  insisted  upon  more  minute  informati<ni.    Then  came  a 


3 


BoiP  Ptary  Ditenditad  Cook 


888 

third  dispatch  defining  the  point  on  the  land  from  which  the 
«pedition  took  Its  departure  in  starting  out  on  the  Polar  Sea. 
I    J"  ^^7''  "°'y  ^*"*  "TWO  SLEEPS  from  Heiberg 

r  fi^  ^  >'.  ''"'  ^'"^"^^^  "~*«'  ^  meaning  rf 
the  first  one  perfecUy  dear;  for  it  will  be  noticed  thalthelater 
dcfi,..Uons  as  to  either  the  point  of  departure  or  the  point  of 
turning  l«ck  are  not  in  the  slightest  deg««  changed  by  the 
wording  of  the  last  two  dispatches.  All  three  ,^viLsly 
intended  to  convey  to  the  eager  pubUc.  ONE  positive  and  <rf 
course  unchangeable  and  highly  important  piece  of  informatio^ 
namely;  that  Cook  turned  back  after  traveling  on  the  Pol« 
Sea  JWO  SLEEPS  NORTH  FKOM  mmmoti^' 
Sx>  far  the  public  understood  Peary's  attitude.    The  de- 

^t'^w  7^  .'^^"^*"  '^"'''^  P""'*^  •''"•«''ty  '"Uy-  To 

.nfnl^-'  T^  T'"'^'  ^*^^  supplemented  the  above 
.nformation  with  a  solemn  promise,  th,  if  the  publfc  would 
suspend  judgment  until  he  could  .each  .e  maii^.  he  wolSd 
present  his  proofs  in  such  an  unequn  iK;.J  manner  that  all 
woidd  know  that  Cook  was  giving  them  a  "gold  brick  " 
If  the  salient  facts  given  in  these  ITIREE  wireless  dispatches 
hav«  ever  been  tmthfully  esUblished.  they  end  forever  Cook^s 
claim  as  bemg  the  discoverer  of  the  North  Pole.    We  can 

tTe'r'^^il  t:'^'^''^^"  '^  ^""-^  ^"  ^  »>-'  examination*^ 
These  dispatches  arrived  early  in  September.  1008.    Peaiy 
as  would  be  natural,  was  also  curious  as  to  the  detaU,  of  C^.' 

o"fTerdi  ^"^^^-^'y-  ^-'o-.  'oUowing  the  publS^L" 
of  Uiese  dispatches  reporters  and  friends  on  invitation  steamed 
^rapidly  as  pos«ble  to  Battie  Harbor.  Labrador  to  wSS 

n^L^^"  t  '^'"^'^  '^^^  ''"^"«  *^«*  day,  in  Indian 
Harbor  accumulating  information.  WLen  the  first  group  of 
Peary  s  fnends  arrived,  he  had  access  to  Cook'.  fSl  sU 

fish  loft  on  the  shore.  I*  may  re.:on.bly  l,e  as.u.ned  that 
he  first  scrutinized  tiie  particular  portion  of  C-^ok.  narrative 
wnich  relates  to  his  first  two  marches  out  or  the  Polar^r    ^ 


SS4 


HoM  tiu  North  Pole  Bten  Diteovered 


i'i 


wu  a  perfectly  natural  desire  on  Peary'i  part  to  be  early  in- 
formed of  the  exact  record  made  by  Cook  as  to  the  marches 
which  Peary  had  been  forced  to  describe  publicly,  and  to  take 
ntjie  wherein  the  record  differed  from  his  own  wireless  venion, 
which  had  by  that  time  also  been  publuhed  throughout  the 

world. 

It  is  a  plausible  conjecture  that  Peary  remamed  with  his 
ship  in  Labrador  so  long  as  he  did,  running  into  weeks,  for  no 
other  purpose  than  to  master  the  contents  of  Cook's  writings 
before  being  called  upon  to  make  further  conunenta.  Whether 
Peary  familiari«ed  himself  with  Cook's  narrative  or  not  at  this 
special  time  in  I^abrador  is  of  coiurse  unimportant,  but  whenever 
he  did  see  the  narrative,  he  certainly  noticed  what  everybody 
else  surely  nmst  have  noticed,  that  there  was  an  irreconcilable 
contradiction  between  Cook's  record  as  to  his  first  two  marches 
out  on  the  Polar  Sea  and  the  statement  that  Peaiy  had  already 
sevi  by  wireless. 

Cook  had  said*  that  Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  with  two 
sledges  equipped  with  dogs  and  loaded  provisions  had  accom- 
panied him  north  as  a  supporting  party  from  Heiberg  Land 
THREE  MARCHES,  or  to  the  camp  which  was  reached  on  the 
evening  of  March  20  from  which  camp  Koolootingwah  and 
Liugito  returned  to  land.  Peaiy  must  have  seen  when  he 
read  this  representation  made  by  Cook  that  here  was  an  irre- 
concilable difference  in  detail  between  them;  a  differraice  that 
might  be  fraught  with  serious  consequences  to  Peary;  that 
presented  possibilities  which  might  at  some  time  arise  to  trouble 
him,  and  be  exceedingly  embarrassing  to  him  or  to  Cook,  de- 
pending upon  which  of  t^«  two  explorers  had  been  falsifying; 
for  it  is  undeniable  that  oue  or  the  other  had  written  a  false 

hood. 

Peary  had  already  promised  by  wireless  to  furnish  the 
soiirces  of  his  information  as  soon  as  he  reached  the  mails. 
But  he  saw  that  those  alleged  proofs  sadly  conflicted  with  Cook's 
record,  which  record  Cook  was  in  position  to  sustain.    How 

•Ntw  York  HeraU,  Sept.  «,  1909. 


How  Ptary  Ditertdited  Cook 


8S5 


could  Pteary  under  these  circumiUncet  fulfill  his  promiie  and 
at  the  same  time  escape  the  impending  crisis?  Here  was  the 
obvious  embarrassment.  Suppose  that  Cook  should  eventually 
summon  Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  as  witnesses  to  his  ncatd. 
Both  of  them  were  present  with  the  expedition  for  more  than 
TWO  MARCHES  north.  Cook  couM  not,  of  course,  summon 
these  Eskimos  immediately,  but  nevertheless  it  was  an  unsafe 
position  ftw  Peary  to  rest  in,  providing,  of  course,  that  his  own 
sUtement  was  not  true  that  Cook's  Eskimos  had  said  that  Cook 
turned  back  after  TWO  marches. 

It  is  well  known  that  both  Koolootingwah  and  Inugito 
were  oM  time  acqiuuntances  of  Peaiy.  The  public  might  say 
that  Peary  could  have  clinched  his  own  version  himself,  if  it 
were  true,  while  in  Etah,  by  getting  the  testimony  of 
these  two  disinterested  Eskimos  to  corroborate  the  alleged 
testimony  of  Cook's  two  companions  Etukishook  and  Ahwela. 
It  would  hardly  be  believed  that  Peary  would  have  missed 
voluntarily  such  an  opportunity  as  that,  so  unportant  and 
conchisive  in  its  results,  as  such  testimony  wouM  have  been. 
The  omissicm  at  best  might  itself  need  e(p!U>/Ation  which  wouW 
be  embarrassing.  Prom  any  angle  the  situation  was  not  quite 
as  pleasant  and  secure  as  it  might  have  been  had  more  sagacity 
been  used  m  wording  the  wireless  dispatches.  One  thing  was 
certain.  There  was  an  unnecessaiy  and  embarrassmg  con- 
tradicti<Hi  that  could  have  been  avoided  by  Peary  had  he  seen 
Cook's  narrative  before  committing  himself  to  the  details. 

If,  for  the  purpose  of  argument  only,  we  should  now  assume 
that  Peary  is  the  guilty  party;  that  it  was  he  who  had  made  a 
false  statement,  it  would  at  once  have  occurred  to  him  (under 
those  circumstances)  that  he  had  made  an  inexcusable  blunder. 
He  had  his  opporunity,  and  could  of  course  have  said 
anything  he  wished  (supposmg  he  was  falsifying).  He  could 
just  as  well  have  sud  that  Cook  went  FOUR  marches  out  on  the 
Polar  Sea  as  to  have  said  TWO  marches,  had  he  oafy  known 
what  Cook  had  recorded,  or  had  he  consulted  either  Kookwting- 
wah  or  Inugito,  or  even  had  he  stood  by  his  first  vague  state- 


MICROCOPY   RESOLUTION   TEST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0 


I.I 


1^ 

11^ 

m 

1^ 

■  3.2 

1 — 

■  3.6 

ts. 

11 2.0 

1.8 


1.25 


1.4 


^  /APPLIED  IIVMGE     Inc 

BF.  1653   East   Main   Street 

r^  Rochester.   Ne*   York        14609       USA 

^S  (716)   482  -  0300  -  Phone 

^=  (716)   288  -  5989  -  Fax 


886 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


''-BEHI^- ' 


ment  of  "far  from  land"  and  not  have  been  seduced  into  giving 
details.  He  could  have  said  five  marches  or  six  and  have  been 
perfectly  safe  in  so  doing,  as  no  one  could  then  have  disputed 
him  in  support  of  Cook.  Anyway  this  was  evidently  the 
situation  in  which  Peary  was  placed  when  he  reached  the  mails 
with  the  public  hourly  expecting  his  proofs  to  be  published. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  for  some  reason,  Peary  did  not  for 
weeks  publish  his  proofs  as  he  had  promised.  The  press  nagged 
and  ridiculed  him.  A  crisis  had  arrived.  Finally  the  announce- 
ment came  that  the  "proofs"  would  be  first  submitted  to  the 
Peary  Arctic  Club  before  publication,  lor  their  judgment  and 
decision  as  to  what  "form"  they  should  be  presented  to  the 
public.  As  may  well  be  imagined,  this  was  the  last  straw.  The 
Peary  Arctic  Club  withheld  these  allied  proofs  another  three 
weeks  or  so,  before  they  published  them.  The  public  and  the 
press  were  exasperated  at  the  delay  which  could  mean  but  one 
thing,  so  the  press  declared,  and  that  was  that  the  alleged 
proofs  were  no  proofs  at  all,  that  the  Peary  Arctic  Club  dare  not 
publish  them,  and  other  assertions  of  like  tenor.  The  Peary 
Arctic  Club,  however,  was  in  the  main  composed  of  men  wIh) 
were  equal  inteUectually  to  almost  any  emergency  that  called 
for  sagacity,  and  could  evidently  execute  an  escape  from  almost 
any  dilemma  or  predicament.  At  last  they  published  what 
may  be  called  a  FOURTH  statement,  counting  Peary's  three 
wireless  dispatches  from  Labrador,  further  defining  (if  shiftmg 
may  be  called  definmg)  the  point  where  the  ESKIMOS  actually 
SAID  that  Cook  turned  back. 

Two  courses  were  open  to  them,  and  apparently  only  two. 
One  was  to  stand  firmly  by  the  wireless  representations  that 
Peary  had  published,  and  take  the  chances  of  having  them 
eventually  proved  false.  The  other  was  to  ignore  altogether 
the  three  statements  made  by  Peary  as  to  the  fact  that  the 
Eskimos  said  that  they  went  only  TWO  SLEEPS  from  land, 
and  to  substitute  entirely  different  testimony  of  the  Eskimos, 
even  though  it  be  contradictory,  but  nevertheless  testimony 
that  would  harmonize  with  Cook's  record  as  far  north  as 


t^ 


How  Peary  Discredited  Cook 


887 


Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  accom{}anied  him,  or  ctmld  be 
witnesses  to.  Once  past  this  danger-post  it  would  be  evident 
that  Peary  would  be  shifted  into  a  comparatively  impregnable 
position.  This  might  be  duplicity,  but  it  was  also  desperation. 
The  latter  course,  desperate  though  it  may  appear,  wasadoptM. 
The  pr'  Mc  was  faced  with  a  statement  over  Peary's  signature, 
which  although  it  gave  the  lie  to  his  former  THREE  declarations 
placed  him  for  the  future  (so  it  appeared)  in  an  apparently 
impr^nable  position. 

The  fourth  statement  as  amended  was  that  the  Eakimos 
said  that  they  went  "north  or  northwesterly — one  sleep  beyond 
where  the  two  Eskimos  (Koolootingwah  and  Inugito)  turned 
back."  Now  the  coast  was  clear.  Who  among  living  men  in 
support  of  Cook's  record  could  prove  this  last  statement  false? 
It  is  true  that  the  other  members  of  the  expedition  did  not 
sign  their  names  to  this  daring  and  conscienceless  transaction. 
They  signed  only  that  portion  of  the  publication  which  said 
nothing — ^that  portion  which  recited  only  the  alleged  questions 
and  answers,  which  were  comparatively  harmless.  We  now 
have  Peary's  fully  amended  allegation  of  what  Cook's  Eskimos 
have  said. 

The  reasons  for  the  significant  change  in  the  testimony  of 
the  Eskimos  from  two  sleeps  to  four  sleeps  are  obvious  enough. 
Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  both  accompanied  Cook  three 
marches  northward  from  Svartevoeg,  or  to  the  third  camp  from 
land,  arriving  there  on  the  evening  of  the  20th.  Koolootingwah 
brought  back  a  letter  of  instructions  from  Cook  at  that  third 
camp  to  Rudolph  Francke.  This  letter,  no  doubt,  was  dated 
at  the"Thuxl  camp.  Polar  Sea,  March  20  (or  21),  1908, "  or  words 
to  that  effect.  When  Peary  made  the  alleged  examination  of 
Etukishook  and  Ahwelah  at  Etah  he  omitted  examining  either 
Koolootingwah  or  Inugito  both  of  whom  knew  as  much  as 
anybody  could  know  about  the  travels  of  the  expedition  as  far 
north  as  three  marches  from  Heiberg  I^and.  Anyway  when 
these  amended  "proofs"  came  out  they  omitted  "Two  sleeps" 
and  substituted  the  words :     "After  sleeping  at  the  camp  where 


V 


SS8 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


the  last  two  Eskimos  turned  back,  Dr.  Cook  and  the  two  boys 
went  in  a  northerly  or  northwesterly  direction,  one  more  march. " 
This  makes  the  alleged  point  of  turning  back  tova  marches 
instead  of  two,  and  would  make  the  distauce  92  miles  out  on  the 
Polar  Sea. 

The  significance  of  the  amendment  is  two-fold.  First:  it 
takes  the  expedition  beyond  where  Koolootingwah  and  Inugito 
went,  or  could  testify  regarding  it,  and  Second:  it  leaves  Cook's 
narrative  imcontested  up  to  and  including  four  marches  out 
on  the  Polar  Sea — leaving  only  the  question  in  dispute  whether 
he  went  on,  or  tmned  back  at  that  point.  This  at  least  simpli- 
fies matters. 

Among  civilized  people,  it  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  justice, 
that  all  men  are  to  be  considered  irmocent  until  convicted. 
The  principles  of  civil  righteousness  could  not  otherwise  prevail. 
The  burden  of  conviction  is  on  the  accuser.  He  must  furnish 
a  preponderance  of  clear  evidence.  In  a  court  of  justice  guided 
by  these  accepted  principles,  not  one  sentence  of  Peary's  alleged 
testimony  would  be  admitted  as  evidence.  But  this  so-called 
evidence  has  been  submitted  under  most  pecuUar  circumstances 
to  a  tribimal  of  evident  injustice.  Nothing  can  be  more  un- 
mistakable than  the  fact,  that  a  falsehood  has  been  uttered  in 
Peary's  charges.  Peaiy  has  not  by  a  single  word  or  paragraph 
convicted  Cook.  But  in  attempting  to  do  so  with  such  weak, 
worthless,  wicked  evidence,  Peary  has  convicted  Peaiy.  K  by 
analysis  this  fact  is  established,  nothing  more  need  be  shown. 
But  as  we  are  now  in  the  crisis  of  this  argument,  it  is  better  to 
test  it  further.  We  may  be  interested  to  know  whether  or 
not  Peary  has  been  more  fortunate  in  his  allegations  of  Cook's 
return  march,  or  whether  or  not  circumstance  harmonizes  with 
analysis. 

The  analysis  of  Peary's  statement  as  to  the  Eskimo  testi- 
mony condenses  the  controversy  down  to  the  very  simple 
problem  as  to  whether  Cook  went  north  from  that  point  on  to 
the  Pole,  or  returned.  Nothing  else  is  at  issue.  We  ought  to 
be  able  to  handle  the  problem  reduced  to  this  simple  form  even 


How  Peary  Discredited  Cook 


though  there  is  no  direct  evidence  at  hand,  because  there  is 
such  an  abundance  of  circumstantial  evidence  as  to  this  one 
fact.  If  it  can  be  proved  that  Cook  turned  back  after  making 
four  marches  northward,  it  would  be  of  litt*  importance,  and 
of  veiy  little  interest  where  he  then  went,  o.  vhat  direction  he 
took  to  get  to  his  destination  wherever  it  was,  but  it  is  of 
supreme  importance  to  know  whether  or  not  Peary  who  is 
testifying  is  a  reliable  witness.  The  whole  problem  rests  entirely 
upon  this  knowledge. 

Peary's  statement  as  to  Cook's  movements,  purports  to 
cover  one  more  significant  fact.  Tuis  reads:  "They  did  not 
enter  this  rough  ice  nor  cross  the  lead,  but  turned  toestward 
to  Heiberg  Land  at  a  point  west  of  where  they  had  left  the 
cache,  and  where  the  four  men  turned  back."*  Cook  may 
have  falsified  his  route  after  March  21,  but  it  is  inconceivable 
that  he  would  do  so  over  that  porti(m  which  his  enemies  concede, 
admit  and  know  he  actually  did  travel.  The  fourth  camp 
or  March  21st  camp  (92  miles  out  as  shown  on  Diagram  1)  is 
practically  on  the  97th  meridian  west.  Svartevoeg,  the  start- 
ing point  from  land  is  on  the  98d  meridian  west,  four  degree* 
further  to  the  east.  No  portion  of  Heiberg  Land  extends  farther 
west  than  the  95th  meridian  and  this  westward  extension  would 
be  two  d^rees  east  of  Camp  No.  4,  and  the  point  on  the  land 
that  reaches  that  far  west  is  50  miles  south  of  Svartevo^. 
Cook,  therefore,  could  have  returned  to  no  portion  of  Heiberg 
Land  unles'-  he  turned  east. 

Now  read  again  the  sentence  that  "They  turned  westward 
to  Heiberg  Land"  (from  Camp  4,  March  21).  The  Peaiy 
Arctic  Club  itself  obviously  needed  a  censor.  Peary's 
location  of  the  allied  Camp  Jessup,  his  location  of  the  sun,  and 
his  avowed  compass  directions  when  he  alleges  he  was  at  the 
Pole  were  considered  about  the  acme  of  blunders.  But  this 
statement  of  turning  "westward"  to  land  that  then  bore  east 
or  southeast  is  assuredly  a  climax  in  absurdities.  Should  Cook, 
or  should  anybody  be  condemned  oa  testimony,  which  carries 

*SeeDMgnml. 


J 


840 


Uaithe  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


\    t  •: 


internal  evidence  and  proofs  of  its  vicious  character?  Yet  th« 
statement  from  which  I  have  been  quoting  contains  all  the 
evidence  ever  yet  produced  against  Cook  (aside  from  that 
which  may  be  foimd  by  analysis  of  his  narrative).  Cook's 
story  of  his  travels  is  now  unqualifiedly  accepted  as  true  up  to 
and  including  one  march  beyond  where  Koolooting^vah  and 
Inugito  the  only  disinterested  witnesses  leave  him.  Th«»re  are 
just  two  stories  extant  as  to  what  course  Cook  took  from  the 
fourth  camp  on  the  Polar  Sea,  Cook's  stoiy  and  the  amended 
stoiy  of  Peary. 

Cook  gives  in  detail  all  his  locations,  the  dates,  distances, 
consumption  of  food,  ice  drift.  Everything  is  as  clear,  as  frank, 
and  as  ingenuous  as  any  story  (as  far  as  I  can  see)  ever  written 
by  any  explorer.  I  can  discover  no  conceahnent,  no  im- 
possibilities, and  apparently  no  cunning  work.  I  am  unable 
to  find  any  serious  matter  relating  to  these  marches  that  does 
not  properly  check  out  by  any  analysis  or  synthesis  I  can  make. 
He  gives  reasons  for  every  move  and  for  every  change  of  pro- 
gram ;  why  he  failed  to  retimi  U3  prearranged  to  Svartevoeg  and 
thence  along  Nansen  Sound  where  he  had  provided  caches  of 
provisions;  why  he  did  not  later  cross  Ellesmere  Land  and  make 
his  way  north  to  his  supplies  and  thereby  save  the  hardship, 
the  hunger  and  privation  of  the  approaching  Arctic  night.  I 
am  sure  that  no  rule  oi  analysis  can  be  applied  to  Cook's  story 
that  if  applied  to  any  other  explorer's  story  in  like  manner  will 
not  entitle  Cook  to  equal  credence  with  anyone  who  may  be 
named,  all  other  circumstances  being  equal. 

Against  Cock's  story  stands  Peaiy's  report  of  his  allied 
examination  of  the  Eskimos,  as  amended  by  the  Peaiy  Arctic 
Club.  But  if  we  accept  every  word  (that  is  not  contradictory 
with  his  own  words)  Peary's  story  is  still  unbelievable  by  all  the 
rules  of  eq-'ity  or  reason.  Peary  first  fixes  the  point  where 
Cook  is  alleged  to  have  turned  back.  He  shifts  that  pomt  to 
another  point  beyond  reconciliation  with  the  first  or  with 
possible  truth.  He  next  mixes  the  alleged  direction  taken  by 
Cook  to  reach  Heiberg  Land,  and  mixes  it  as  hopelessly  and  as 


How  Peary  Discredited  Cook 


S41 


absurdly  as  would  be  possible  for  his  wo:st  enemy  to  do  it  for 
him.  And  there,  Peary  practically  rests.  Nothing  else  of  the 
slightest  importance  is  mentioned,  no  dates,  no  distances,  no 
reasons,  no  other  material  facts. 

Can  it  be  a  diflScult  matter  for  ^ny  reader  to  pass  judgment 
on  this  problem  in  tliis  condensed  form?  Is  Cook's  record 
reasonable?  If  not,  wherein  is  it  shown  otherwise?  Is  any 
part  of  Peary's  version  a  credible  part?  If  so,  what  paragraph 
can  it  be?  We  must  be  reasonable  and  fair.  Is  it  in  locating 
the  point  on  the  Polar  Sea  of  northmg  made?  Or  is  it  the 
manner  of  his  getting  back  to  Heiberg  Land  by  going  westerly? 
These  two  representations  contain  the  crux  of  the  Cook-Peary 
controversy.  Did  Cook  do  or  co;ild  he  ha'-»  done  the  im- 
possible things  Peary  alleges  he  did  do?  Or  does  Cook's  own 
version  seem  more  reasonable? 

When  Peary  was  writing  his  own  narrative,  he  kept  the 
{pfts  fairly  straight  as  long  as  his  supporting  parties  were  with 
him.  The  rate  of  speed  to  the  Bartlett  Camp  is,  possibly, 
truthfully  recorded.  But  that  rate  of  speed  which  was  so 
exasperatingly  slow;  the  open  leads  which  so  long  detained  him; 
the  pressfuie  ridges  that  f  seriously  obstructed  him;  the  broken 
sledges  that  so  much  annoyed  him;  and  all  the  other  enumerated 
trials  that  afflicted  him  on  his  journey  that  far  north  vanished 
with  the  supporting  parties.  Peary  did  not  commence  to  seriously 
falsify  his  own  narrative  (if  he  did  falsify  it)  until  his  last 
supporting  party  had  turned  back.  He  would  not  otherwise 
have  been  safe.  It  was  essential  to  be  rid  of  supporting  parties. 
It  was  equally  important  and  equally  essential  to  adopt  the 
same  rule  if  he  was  to  falsify  a  story  about  Cook.  There  must 
be  no  witnesses. 

When  he  undertook  to  work  out  a  story  to  fit  Cook's  case 
(if  this  theory  is  correct)  he  knew  instantly  that  the  first  essen- 
tial was  to  place  Cook  in  the  story,  as  he  had  before  placed 
himself,  beyond  the  point  where  supporting  parties  could 
expose  him.  This  feature,  as  far  as  I  know,  is  Peary's  exclusive 
invention.     He   had  unwittingly  erred   in  his  dispatches   in 


n 


i  s 


848 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diteocered 


'^fi-., 


I: 


k-l. 


presuming  that  Cook's  supporting  parties  had  left  him  stHei- 
berg  Land,  and  in  further  supposing  that  "two  sleeps"  would 
take  Cook  far  enough  north  to  be  safe.  But  when  he  read 
Cook's  record  and  learned  that  Koolootmgwah  and  Inugito 
had  followed  Cook  for  three  marches  beyond  land,  he  must 
have  realized  that  he  had  made  a  fatal  error.  Whatever  else 
was  then  to  be  done,  or  left  undone,  this  error  must  be  obscured 
or  corrected. 

Absent  men  tell  no  tales.  If  the  enforcement  of  this  rule 
was  necessary  to  protect  Peary  against  the  possibility  of  adverse 
witnesses  in  making  his  own  clauns,  it  was  equally  necessary  to 
enforce  the  rule  for  his  protection,  when  setting  up  claims  as 
to  Cook.  It  was  as  essential  to  be  rid  of  Koolootingwah  and 
inugito  in  Cook's  case  (as  the  conditions  clearly  indicate)  as 
it  was  to  be  rid  of  Bartlett  in  his  own  case.  The  object  to  be 
accomplished  is  identical  in  both  cases.  Hence,  the  daring 
venture  in  the  long  delay  in  publishing  his  censored  version, 
and  so  skillfully  changing  the  wording  of  it  that  inasmuch  as  all 
the  facts  were  not  then  known  to  the  public,  it  might  escape 
being  noticed  that  the  statement  had  been  adroitly  changed 
from  "TWO  sleeps"  to  "FOUR  sleeps."  without  mentioning 
either  number. 

This  5s  si-rely  veiy  skillful  literary  work,  and  whatever 
else  m    r  .    as  to  the  numerous  blunders  that  Peary  has 

made,  y  :,  in  fact  falsified  two  stories,  and  made  them 

both  stick,  ^e  iS  surely  entitled  to  whatever  credit  attaches  to 
such  an  achievement.  If  the  theory  evolved  by  this  analysis 
be  sound,  that  the  result  is  accomplished  by  one  man,  who  is 
himself  not  over  endowed  with  clearness  of  vision,  who  writes 
two  false  stories,  both  constructed  upon  an  identical  plan,  and 
has  both  tales  run  the  gauntlet  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, and  of  many  Geographical  Societies  the  world  over,  and 
then  gains  the  ctmfidence  of  the  general  public  by  his  con- 
sununate  skill  through  the  news  agencies,  he  is  certainly 
warranted  in  inflating  his  chest,  and  is  entitled  to  glistening 


HotD  Peary  Dueredited  Cook 


84S 


medals,  but  they  should  be  of  an  entirely  diffei«nt  design  from 
those  now  hanging  on  his  breast. 

As  this  theory  of  Peary's  invention  perfectly  harmonizes 
v.ith  Peary's  writings  and  with  Peary's  position  in  every  way 
that  it  can  be  viewed,  it  would  seem  as  if  it  must  be  true.  Chi 
the  contrary  it  is  in  absolute  discord  with  everything  ever 
written  by  Cook  who  does  not  appear  to  have  even  remotely 
entertained  such  a  theory.  He  reverses  Peary's  methods  in 
many  ways;  he  did  not  plan  accelerating  speed;  he  did  not  find 
the  going  ccmtinually  improving  as  he  advanced  north,  and  in 
no  way  can  Peary's  plans  be  made  to  harmonize  with  any  of 
those  of  Cook  on  his  last  trip  north,  or  with  anything,  or  with 
any  other  plans  in  Cook's  history.  But  as  before  indicated, 
Peary  has  convinced  the  general  public  and  many  geographical 
societies  that  when  Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  turned  back  on 
the  evening  of  the  20th,  that  Cook  then  immediately,  or  after 
the  next  march,  himself  turned  back  and  went  wuth  and  south- 
westerly, finally  reaching  Cape  Sparbo.  The  whereabouts, 
therefore,  of  Cook  between  the  time  of  his  leaving  Camp  No.  4 
until  he  reached  Sparbo  would  be  interesting  if  it  could  be 
known.  One  of  these  two  versions  whether  true  or  not,  was 
written  by  the  participant  Cook,  who  knew  the  facts.  Rules 
of  justice  presume  it  true  until  proven  otherwise.  The  other  is 
published  by  a  rival  claimant,  who  could  not  have  known  the 
facts  or  the  truth,  but  who  asserts  in  an  extremely  vague  way 
that  he  heard  the  stoiy  from  Cook's  two  Eskimos.  We  have 
now  before  us  all  the  data  that  are  possible  to  get,  and  the 
problem  condensed  to  the  short  interval  of  time  heretofore 
menticmed. 

The  analysis  of  the  Eskimo  testimony  so  far  condenaes  the 
controversy  down  to  the  very  simple  problem  as  to  whether 
Cook  wmt  north  from  that  point  or  returned.  Nothing  else 
now  is  at  issue. 

If  it  can  be  proven  that  Cook  turned  back  aita  making 
four  marchu  northward,  it  would  as  I  have  before  stated  be  of 
little  interest  whoe  he  then  went,  w  what  direction  he  took  to 


7 


844 


Eat  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeovered 


get  to  his  destination  wherever  it  was.  But  it  is  of  supreme 
importance  in  ascertaining  the  truth  to  know  whether  or  not 
the  witness  Peary  who  is  testifying  is  a  reliable  witness.  The 
whole  problem  rests  entirely  upon  this  knowledge. 

To  accept  Peary's  version  as  true  one  must  first  be  con- 
vinced that  after  Cook  had  spent  the  winter  of  1907-8  at  Annoa- 
tok  organizing  his  expedition  and  had  thereafter  carried  the 
expedition  across  Ellesmere  Land  and  four  marches  out  on  the 
Polar  Sea,  and  the  last  supporting  party  had  returned  leaving 
him  alone  with  his  two  Eskimos  and  with  the  supplies  on  his 
sledges  yet  untouched,  that  immediately  on  that  very  day  (or 
the  next  day)  the  lure  of  unexplored  polar  regions  which  had 
been  his  life's  dream  suddenly  departed;  that  he  instantly 
decided  then  and  there  to  abandon  this  obviously  consuming 
ambition  and  abandon  all  his  caches  of  provisions  thr.t  he  had 
provided  along  his  return  route,  and  without  waiting  a  single 
day  to  see  if  conditions  might  not  change,  but  with  an  apparent- 
ly aimless  purpose,  wandered  a  year  in  a  previously  explored 
country  to  inevitable  destitution,  possibly  for  all  he  could  have 
known,  to  starvation  and  ignominious  death;  that  he  vohm- 
tarily  marched  500  miles  away  from  his  caches  of  supplies  to 
crawl  into  an  imderground  den  at  Cape  Sparbo  to  stay  there 
through  an  Arctic  night  without  food  and  practically  without 
ammunition,  aiid  deliberately  by  hunger  reduce  himself  and 
his  two  Eskimos  to  the  skeletons  that  Whitney  met  at  Annoatok, 
on  their  return  in  1909.  Are  we  convinced  that  this  is  a  true 
version  of  a  sane  man's  proceedings  and  can  we  accept  it 
without  a  scintilla  of  worthy  evidence  to  accompany  it? 

We  can  better  judge  in  matters  of  this  kind  by  comparisons. 
Is  this  version  consistent  with  knovm  facts?  Does  it  harmonize 
with  Cook's  previous  or  subsequent  acts?  Does  it  connect 
properly  with  the  knowlMge  we  have?  Is  it  reasonable  to 
suppose,  for  instance,  thai  Cook;  who  had  previously  spent  the 
greater  portion  of  a  year  locked  in  the  ice  floes  of  the  Antarctic 
Sea  and  during  that  time  had  often  left  the  imprisoned  ship 
to  make  sledge  excursions  over  pressure  ridg^-s;  who,  after  this 


How  Peary  Duertdited  Cook 


S45 


experience  and  his  previoM^  experience  in  the  Arctic,  decided  to 
try  to  reach  the  Nmth  Pole  and  spent  an  Arctic  winter  in 
preparing  for  the  task;  who,  it  is  believed  has  surpassed  all  men 
in  the  unprecedented  feat  *»  *^his  last  exploit  of  passing  an 
Arctic  winter  as  far  north  as  Ht  Sparbo  without  a  storage  of 
supplies  or  ammunition  to  obtain  them,  and  yet  in  his  necessari* 
ly  emaciated  and  famished  condition,  when  day  light  came, 
trudged  three  hundred  miles  north  to  reach  Aiinoatok  and  food, 
and  then  continued  on  foot  seven  hundred  miles  more  south- 
ward to  rerx!h  civilization  (one  thousand  miles  altogether  over 
ice  and  snow  farther  than  from  land  to  the  Pole  and  back), 
would  idle  a  year  for  no  other  announced  or  conceivable  object 
than  to  bring  up<Hi  himself  such  needless  hardship  accompanied 
with  auch  extreme  hazards  and  all  because  he  "encountered 
rough  ice"  the  fourth  day  out? 

Can  sensible  intelligence  accept  this  version?  Would  such 
a  proceeding  on  Cook's  part  result  from  anything  short  of 
downright  hopeless  imbecility?  Is  there  anything  in  Cook's 
known  antecedents  that  furnishes  even  a  clue  to  such  a  theory? 

Suppose  that  Cook  himself  had  been  the  author  of  Peary's 
version,  instead  of  his  own  narrative,  would  not  the  worki  have 
decided  that  he  was  a  fool  or  had  lost  his  mind? 

If  we  do  not  at  "|)t  ihis  versirai,  then  there  is  n<rt  left 
existing  a  scintilla  of  outside  evidoioe  tending  'rn  to  show 
that  Cook's  v*  sion  is  r   t  tnif 


The  civiiized  worl«l  thr< 
press  has,  however,  accepted 
Cook  to  infamy.    But  is  f  Ik  r< 
logic  or  reason  justify  the  ve' 

We  can,  however,  in  oppo 
prove  nothing.     It  is  not  incu 
to  prove  anything.     But  we  ca; 
sense.     We  can  compare  all  we  c 
know  and  see  if  there  would  be  . 
minds,  in  accepting  the  Peary  v«% 

Cook  is  known  by  abundant 


a  skilful  numipulatimi  of  the 

eaiy's  version  and  coodenmed 

iving  V  -goii  who  can  today  by 


•  =  i'eary's  version  positively 
4  <^  us  (<v  even  on  Cook 
ppeal  to  reastm,  to  cfnnmc  . 
know  with  what  we  do  not 

ado^  of  juativt;  in  rational 

fiken    v'ulemet  to  be  a 


840 


Hat  tht  i  Jrth  Pol*  Been  Ducomtd 


very  active,  strenuoiM,  adventurou',,  brave,  ambitious  man 
enduring  any  hardship  or  privatiiM)  with  unselfish  fortitude. 
He  has  spent  much  of  his  time  for  over  SO  years  in  the  Arctic 
and  Antarctic,  aluayt  wiihotit  pay. 

Is  this  much  consistent  with  the  Peary  version?  Is  it 
CfHisistent  with  falsifier's  arts?  Every  one  of  Cook's  associates 
during  all  these  20  years,  Peary  himself  included,  have  testified 
to  Cook's  uniform  high  character.  He  is  kn' wn  to  be  untiring, 
courageous  and  darin?  m  all  his  ezplmts. 

Is  it  not,  therefort;,  quite  consistent  with  his  whole  career 
to  believe  that  he  would  have  tried  at  least,  and  tried  as  strmu- 
ously  as  any  one  else  would  have  been  likely  to  try  to  reach  the 
N<»ih  Pole,  or  at  least  to  h :  vc  waited  awhile  for  an  opportunity 
to  present  itself  for  crossing  that  obstruction  at  the  4th  Camp? 

Cook  has  furnished  to  the  workl  every  partkJe  of  proof 
that  would  have  been  possible  for  him  to  furnish  hac  he  in 
truth  and  beyond  question  actually  been  to  the  North  Pole. 
He  could  then  have  done  no  more  than  he  has  d<»e.  Besides 
this,  it  may  be  said  that  his  story  has  stood  a  fire  from  hcmha 
above  his  head,  from  forts  on  every  side,  from  mines  beneath  his 
feet,  and  it  has  run  a  gauntlet  unequalled  in  hisiory  for  the 
severity  of  the  test,  and  not  one  of  his  strtements,  as  fa  as  we 
have  now  reached,  has  yet  been  disproven  either  by  wi  sses, 
analysis,  or  by  drcumstanoe. 

Perhaps  by  examination  we  may  form  a  plr-visliile  idea  at 
least  as  to  what  part  of  the  Arctic  Coo''  was  mo*'  'Ilrely  to  have 
been  in  after  he  left  the  4th  Camp  Mai.     '1, 1908. 

This  alleged  inter^aew  with  the  Eskimos,  fairly  interpreted, 
is  intended  to  indicate  that  Cook  went  South,  instead  of  North 
from  a  point  92  miles  north  from  his  point  of  departure  from 
land.  There  is  no  other  reason  but  that  for  publidiing  it.  No 
one  knows  where  Cook  wmt,  but  is  it  at  all  likely  that  he  went 
south  in  view  of  all  that  we  do  know? 

Let  us  use  the  facts  we  have.  We  will  assume  fb$A  the 
alleged  testimimy  of  the  Eskimos,  indicates  that  which  it  does 
not  say,  that  Cook  went  south  to  Cape  Sparbo  instead  of  north 


How  Peary  DuerediUd  Cook 


S47 


to  the  Vole.  It  was  obviously  published  to  creuU>  that  itnpres- 
sion  and  for  no  other  purpose. 

Only  three  locations  in  the  Arctic  are  fixed  rjid  proven  as  to 
Cook's  whoreabouts.  He  spent  the  winter  of  1007-8  at 
Annoatok.  He  started  from  Annoatok  on  February  19,  1008, 
and  crossed  Ellesmere  Land,  depositing  or  caching  provisicMis 
at  several  places  on  the  way  as  far  as  Svartevoeg,  the  northern 
<^nd  of  Heiberg  Land,  and  there  made  another  and  his  last  cache. 

tarted  from  there  rni  March  18,  1006,  out  on  the  polar  sea 
■ '  somewhere,  and  traveled  north  at  least  02  miles. 

Here  we  leave  him  for  the  present,  and  skip  au  interval. 
He  spent  the  next  winter  1006-0  in  a  den  at  Cape  Sparbo  on 
Jones's  Sound.  This  is  proven  by  his  Eskimo  companion 
(Etukishook)  who  afterwards  piloted  Paul  Rainey  and  Whitney 
to  the  spot,  where  photographs  of  the  den  were  taken  aiid 
published.  These  four  places,  Annoatok,  Svartevoeg,  the  4th 
camp,  and  Sparbo  are  all  the  known  locations  as  to  Cook's 
whereabouts. 

If  we  are  to  believe  that  he  went  else\«rhere  besides  the 
territory  covered  enroute  between  these  four  places  we  must 
believe  what  Cook  ha*  written,  for  no  one  else  has  written  regard- 
ing it. 

The  present  problem,  therefore,  is  where  was  Cook  likely 
to  have  been  immediately  between  the  time  that  Koolootingwah 
and  Inugito  left  him  09  miles  north  of  Svartevoeg  on  March  21, 
1908,  and  until  he  reached  Cape  Sparbo.  We  know  that  he 
afterwards  left  Cape  Sparbo  (on  Feb.  18,  1000)  for  Annoatok, 
just  a  year  within  a  day  from  the  date  of  leaving  Annoatok. 
We  have  accounted  for  his  movem'^nts  during  all  his  absence 
excepting  this  interval  of  time.  Where  wa<>  he  drn'tpg  this 
interval?    That's  the  problem!     The  only  pro     ml 

A  correct  answer  to  that  question  might  determine  whether 
or  not  the  North  Pole  has,  in  fact,  ever  been  discovered.  It 
presents  a  problem  for  soluticm  that  has  been  as  interesting  to 
civilized  mankind  as  any  that  has  arisen  in  many  ages  past. 
Popular  belief  the  civilized  world  over  is  that  Peary's  version 


848 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


hm 


*:& 


k    -^Sl'i 


h 


-lajj- 


is  the  true  one,  and  that  Cook's  is  false.  We  are,  therefore, 
compelled  to  pause  for  a  brief  comparison.  Cook  says  that  he 
proceeded  north  from  the  4th  camp  to  the  Pole  and  on  his 
return  as  he  was  approaching  the  vicinity  of  Svartevoeg  in 
Jime,  he  found  that  he  was  cut  off  from  land  by  an  impossible 
barrier  to  travel  by  either  sledges  or  by  boat.  It  was  an  open 
sheet  of  water  apparently  some  50  miles  wide  filled  with 
crushed  drifting  ice.  His  food  supplies  on  his  sledges  were 
running  low,  permitting  no  delay  or  experiments.  He,  therefore, 
concluded  to  push  on  south  with  the  current  to  a  food  country 
in  the  hope  of  being  later  rescued  by  a  whaler  in  the  vicinity  of 
Jones's  Soimd.  That  failing  to  meet  any  vessels  on  his  arrival 
there,  and  the  season  being  then  far  advanced,  he  had  no  al- 
ternative but  to  remain  over  another  Arctic  winter  night 
before  attempting  to  reach  his  supplies  at  Annoatok. 

We  have  now  before  us  the  known  facts  and  the  known 
circumstances  and,  with  the  light  shed  by  them,  we  may  now 
examine  the  problem  by  assuming  that  Cook  has  in  truth 
falsified  his  stoiy,  and  then  see  what  would  be  a  reasonable  way 
to  look  at  it  on  that  theory;  to  see  what  course  he  probably 
would  have  pursued  in  the  light  of  these  facts  and  circumstances 
if  he  expected  his  story  to  be  accepted  and  his  glory  undimmed. 

The  first  question  that  arises  is  what  could  have  been  the 
possible  object  in  a  falsifier's  mind  for  that  excursion  around  by 
Sparbo,  and  an  Arctic  night  in  that  dungeon?  Peary  has 
advanced  no  reason  for  it,  neither  does  he  say  that  the  Eskimos 
have.  But  there  must  be  some  reason  if  we  can  only  find  it. 
Why  was  it  necessary  to  the  plausibility  of  a  falsifier's  story? 
Plausibility  is  the  most  important  feature  in  such  a  venture. 
Plausibility  must  be  kept  constantly  in  mind,  and  never  sacri- 
ficed even  for  heroism.  Cook  could  have  escaped  his  distress 
at  Sparbo  and  escap>ed  the  subsequent  contention  as  to  his 
title  or  to  his  claims  (which  have  arisen  wholly  on  account  of  the 
delay  of  a  year  on  Jones's  Sound)  if  he  had  curried  out  his 
originally  avowed  plans,  and  had  returned  direct  from  Svarte- 
voeg to  Annoatok.    Why  did  he  change  those  plans  and  con- 


How  Peary  Discredited  Cook 


849 


Bume  a  year's  time  in  order  to  add  plausibility  to  a  false  story? 
Can  anybody  discover  a  reason? 

Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  turned  back  at  the  3rd  camp  on 
March  20,  1908,     Cook  started  north  from  that  3rd  camp  and 
traveled  at  least  one  march  more  (according  to  Peary)  reaching 
Camp  No.  4  on  the  evening  of  March  21.     Assuming  it  to  be 
true  that  from  Camp  4  he  turned  back  himself  and  followed  in 
the  tracks  of  Koolootingwah  and  Inugito  south  to  Svartevoeg 
and  remained  there,  or  in  that  vicinity   until  June  1,  or  that  he 
traveled  somewhere  during  this  period  over  the  Polar  Sea  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  convince  his  Eskimos  that  he  had  reached 
the  Pole,  he  would  then  have  consumed  75  days  since  his  de- 
parture on  March  18.     This  was  long  enough  time  for  a  plausible 
story  of  a  trip  to  the  Pole  and  back.     (He  could  have  remained 
until  August  1  if  he  thought  it  necessary  or  advisable,  but  June 
1  was  long  enough  for  plausibility).     He  would  not  have  needed 
during  this  time  to  have  used  any  of  the  food  on  his  sleds,  be- 
cause he  had  sufficient  in  his  cache  at  Svartevoeg.     He  could 
have  started  back  from  Svartevoeg  to  Annoatok  (a  month's 
trip)  with  abundance  of  food,  with  other  caches  all  along  the 
route.     By  consuming  the  same  time  on  the  return  to  Annoatok 
that  he  did  in  the  advance  from  there,  he  would  have  reached 
Annoatok  on  July  1,  1908,  or  a   week  before  Peary  left  New 
York  for  the  north,  and  over  a  month  before  Peary  reached  Etah . 
He  would  then  have  carried  out  his  original  plans  with  an 
exactitude  almost  equalling  those  of  Amundsen  in  the  South. 
He  could  then  have  rushed  on  to  civilization  on  foot  as  he  did 
a  year  later,  taking  the  two  Eskimos  with  him  to  keep  them  out 
of  sight  of  inquisitors  until  Peary  had  passed  on  north  in  August 
leaving  his  trusty  friend  Francke  at  Annoatok  to  protect  his 
secret  and  to  return  on  the  Erik  when  it  arrived.     Cook  would 
have  then  been  the  first  explorer  to  reach  civilization  with  his 
message,  and  have  had  a  year's  advantage  in  promulgating  his 
stx>rj'  and  enjojang  the  gloi^'  of  the  distinction. 

Possibly  Peary,  leammg  on  his  arrival  at  Etah  of  Cook's 
return  and  of  his  claims  (or  if  ignorant  of  the  claims),  might 


if 
■a 


S50 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


himself  have  abandoned  his  trip  north  or  been  satisfied  with  a 
record  of  northing  of  87"  47'  instead  of  90"  00'  or  the  Pole;  but 
had  he  later  claimed  tJie  Pole,  his  story  would  have  been  scrutin- 
ized very  closely  by  the  public.  He  would  have  had  no  im- 
mediate means  of  disproving  Cook  except  by  returning  before 
going  north  to  do  so. 

In  view  of  such  apparently  clear  sailing  for  Cook,  had  he 
practiced  this  deceptive  course,  why  did  he  sacrifice  it,  and 
instead  make  the  insane  excursion  around  by  Sparbo?  It 
would  appear  difficult  for  even  a  Jules  Verne  to  concoct  a 
plausible  yam  of  the  Sparbo  trip.  This  fraud  that  I  am  assum- 
ing would  surely  have  been  detected,  but  nevertheless  this 
scheme  as  outlined,  is,  I  think,  superior  in  plausibility  to  any 
version  yet  presented. 

We  may  take  one  step  more.  Suppose  that  Cook  with  his 
acknowledged  brilliant  mind  is  also  actually  possessed  of  sur- 
passing ingenuity,  and  that  unknown,  unexplained,  and  un- 
suspected by  any  one  else,  he  knew  of  good  reasons  forthe  Jones's 
Sound  trip,  and  the  night  at  Sparbo  to  perfect  his  fraud.  Why 
then  did  he  not  remain  at  Sparbo  in  hiding  with  his  two  witnesses 
until  Peary  passed  on  south?  There  would  have  been  no 
hazard  to  his  claims  in  permitting  Peaiy  to  have  announced  his 
own  claims  first,  because  Cook's  claim  is  a  year  previous.  Be- 
sides this,  Cook's  announcement  made  later,  with  its  story  of  the 
night  at  Sparbo,  would  have  thrilled  the  public  mind  with  a 
double  heroism. 

We  may  view,  therefore,  all  the  known  fact  and  circimi- 
stances  from  any  angle  we  please.  They  do  not  appear  plausible 
or  to  harmorize  with  the  theory  that  Cook's  story  as  far  as 
reviewed  is  false.  On  the  contrary  all  the  known  facts  and  known 
circumstances  do  harmonize  with  the  theory  that  his  story  is 
true  as  far  north  as  the  4th  Polar  Camp  which  is  as  far  north 
as  the  story  has  yet  been  examined.  It  appears  unthinkable 
that  an  intelligent  man  who  was  preparing  such  a  falsehood  as 
the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole  would  commit  such  a  stupid 
blunder  as  to  rush  north  as  Cook  did  from  Sparbo  to  Annoatok, 


How  Peary  Discredited  Cook 


351 


then  start  off  on  foot  on  the  Greenland  side  south  to  civiliz- 
ation and  leave  his  two  Eskimos  in  Etah  to  blab  his  falsehood 
to  their  neighbors  and  to  Peary  and  his  party,  who  were  expected 
soon  to  return  from  the  north.  There  is  no  nJe  by  which  such 
an  egregious  and  stupendous  blimder  can  be  made  to  fit  and 
be  consistent  with  the  theory  that  the  story  of  which  it  is  a 
part  was  constructed  for  a  falsehood. 

Proceeding  with  this  theory,  when  Peary  reached  Etah  m 
August,  1908  on  his  way  north,  he  would  have  heard  of  Cook's 
return.  He  may  not  have  heard  of  Cook's  claim.  But  whether 
he  heard  of  it  or  not,  he  probably  would  have  been  placed  in  an 
embarrassing  dilemma.  If  he  did  not  or  could  not  learn  de- 
finitely of  what  Cook  claimed,  he  could  only  proceed  on  his 
journey  north  in  an  embarrassing  uncertainty  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  prize  he  was  coveting  had  already  been  won,  which 
uncertainty  would  have  robbed  the  venture,  if  genuine,  of  much 
of  its  incentive. 

He  could  not  very  well  abandon  his  trip  on  an  uncertamty. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  he  did  learn  of  Cook's  claim  of  discovery 
by  examining  the  Eskimos,  the  uncertainty  to  him  would  only 
have  been  intensified,  coupled  with  the  remote  possibility  that 
Cook's  claim  might  be  accepted  as  true  by  the  public  during 
the  year  of  his  own  absence  north.  Peary  could  have  had  no 
claim  of  his  own  at  that  time.  He  must  proceed  fiu-ther  and 
consume  another  year  before  he  could  make  one.  He  could 
take  the  testimony  north  with  him  on  his  hazardous  undertaking 
and  risk  the  possibility  of  it  ever  being  made  public.  Never- 
theless, he  would  be  constantly  conscious  that  Cook  would 
have  a  full  year  at  best  to  enjoy  the  distinction  and  glory  and  to 
entrench  himself  in  public  confidence.  Peary  could  not  have 
immediately  returned  home  with  the  testimony  because  he 
could  not  reasonably  abandon  his  trip  north  simply  because 
somebody  else  had  falsified  a  claim.  That  would  have  been 
foolish  and  besides  this  to  return  would  have  been  an  admission 
that  he  feared  the  claim  was  true.  It  would  appear,  therefore, 
if  Cook  had  falsified  his  claim  as  to  the  southern  portion  of  his 


f  I 


. 


352 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


i«M- 


route  which  IS  the  only  position  we  are  now  considering,  he 
would  probably  have  foUowed  somewhat  along  the  lines  herein 
suggested  and  returned  from  Svartevoeg  across  EUesmere  land  to 
Annoatok,  because  all  the  advantages  would  apparently  have 
been  in  his  favor.  All  his  subsequent  troubles  (aU  .f  which 
could  have  been  clearly  foreseen  by  him)  have  arisen  solely 
because  of  his  delay  occasioned  by  the  route  via  Sparbo 

But  why  the  need  o!  secrecy?  If  the  Eskimos  said  they 
turned  back  at  the  4th  Camp,  they  knew  it,  and  knew  they  did 
not  go  farther  north.  It  is.  therefore,  a  certainty  that  Cook 
woiild  not  m  those  ciroumstances  attempt  to  convmce  them  that 
they  had  been  to  the  North  Pole,  nence,  there  would  have  been 
no  secret  to  keep  or  divulge. 

It  is  equally  certain  if  he  did  teU  them  that  he  had  reached 
the  Pole,  they  must  have  gone  farther  north  at  least  than  the 
4th  Camp,  which  disposes  of  Peary's  aUegation  and  explams 
thereason  for  secrecy.     If  they  went  farther  north,  it  was  in 
1908.  when  they  were  expecting  to  be  ba*;..  to  Annoatok  by 
June  1  or  more  than  a  month  before  Peary  left  New  York  when 
no  secrecy  was  required.    The  occasion  for  secrecy  in  1909.  for 
something  already  known  m  1908,  arose  from  the  delay  of  a 
year  by  Uie  route  via  Sparbo.    Peaiy  in  the  meantime  went 
north  and  was  wintering  at  Cape  Sheridan  while  Cook  was 
wmtenng  at  Cape  Sparbo.    Thence,  it  became  a  question  as 
to  which  would  reach  Annoatok  or  Etah  first.     Cook's  earlier 
arrival  compelled  the  injunction  of  secrecy. 

If  Cook  did  not  go  to  the  Pole  but  intended  to  make  a 
false  claim  and  keep  his  intentions  secret  mitU  he  reached 
civih^tion,  he  would  probably  have  adopted  the  same  method 
that  Peary  professes  to  have  adopted  when  he  returned  to  his 
ship  from  the  north;  and  that  was  to  say  nothing  to  anyone 
(except  Bartiett)  about  where  he  went.  This  was  a  safe  poUcy 
to  pursue  By  saying  nothing,  there  was  nothing  to  explain. 
If  Peaiy  had  claimed  the  discovery  of  the  Pole,  it  would  have 
mstantly  become  a  supreme  topic.  Even  the  ignorant  Eskimos 
might  have  made  comparisons  as  to  time,  speed,  and  other 


How  Peary  DUcredited  Cook 


353 


matters.  At  all  events,  it  would  have  been  an  unnecessaiy 
hazard  for  Peary  to  have  claimed  the  discovery  ifU  were  not  true. 
But  on  the  other  hand  if  it  were  true,  he  probably  wouM  have 
sent  a  messenger  ahead,  if  possible  to  do  so,  to  spread  the  glad 
tidings,  to  cheer  the  hearts  and  enliven  the  souls  of  that  party 
of  men  and  women  a>  ith  the  satisfaction  that  the  object  for 
which  they  had  all  toiled  had  been  accomplished.  On  reaching 
his  ship  he  would  have  been  greeted  with  huzzahs  from  every 
throat  on  that  ship. 

Silence  was  a  safe  policy  for  Peary.  It  would  have  been  a 
safe  policy  for  Cook.  If  Cook  did  not  go  to  the  Pole  as  we  are 
now  assuming,  but  proposed  to  make  a  false  claim  and  keep 
his  purp)ose  secret,  he  would  not  have  taken  the  useless  hazard 
of  telling  his  purpose  to  his  Eskimos.     Silence  was  better. 

On  the  CO'  trary  had  he  gone  to  thePole,  he  would  certainly 
have  told  his  Eskimos  of  an  event  of  such  transcendent  im- 
portance. If  he  did  tell  them  it  was  either  because  it  was  true, 
or  because  he  wanted  them  to  think  it  was  true,  not  then  think- 
i  ig  secrecy  nece-ssary.  The  point  is  that  the  Eskimos  got  their 
iaformation  from  Cook;  that  they  did  not  get  it  in  I'^tah;  that 
they  did  not  "laugh"  when  it  was  told,  because  they  told  it 
themselves;  they  did  not  hear  that  "Cook  told  Whitney  and 
Pritchard."  It  was  told  them  at  a  time  when  Cook  was  ex- 
pecting to  reach  Annoutok  by  June  1,  1908,  and  get  his  message 
to  civilization  possibly  before  Peary  left  New  York. 

There  was  no  necessity  for  secrecy  under  those  circiun- 
stances.  But  Cook  was  cut  off  by  open  water  on  his  return 
from  reaching  Heiberg  Land,  compelling  him  to  go  around  by 
Sp"  rbo  and  to  wait  another  year  before  he  could  get  to  Annoatok. 
T  lelay  chrji^ed  the  situation;  it  gave  Peary  time  to  go 
noi...,  and  possibly  (as  far  as  Cook  then  knew)  to  return  to 
civilization  ahead  of  him.  This  changed  condition  naturally 
forced  Cook  to  pledge  his  Eskimos  to  secrecy  in  the  event  they 
should  reach  Annoatok  ahead  of  Peaiy  or  before  Peary  passed 
on  south. 

This  is  the  position  oi  the  two  Eskimos  as  it  existed  at  the 
time  we  are  reviewing. 


^^^^B 
^^^^^P 


CHAPTER  X 


RECAPITULATION 


We  have  now  reviewed  PcHry's  part  in  the  polar  contro- 
versy. It  has  been  shown  by  his  own  representations,  and  by 
the  known  facts  that  he  could  not  have  reached  the  North  Pole. 

To  recapitulate  finally,  Peary's  claims  for  speed  '^n  the 
trip  as  a  whole,  after  leaving  Bartlett  or  for  any  section  of  the 
trip  where  sufficient  data  permit  an  analysis,  are  impossible 
of  accomplishment  by  hiiman  locomotion  or  by  tugging  dogs 
with  loaded  sledges.  To  make  the  course  he  claims  he  did 
make,  in  a  direct  line  over  acknowledged  drifting  ice  floes,  and 
return  in  the  tracks  of  the  outward  march  to  the  point  of 
departure  woiJd  be  a  travesty  on  natural  and  physical  laws. 
To  foreordain  such  a  plan  with  such  accuracy  as  is  alleged  he 
did,  is  to  claim  omniscient  intelligence.  The  marches  alleged 
to  have  been  made  in  the  "icinity  of  the  Polf ,  the  directions 
traveled,  and  the  positions  of  the  sun,  are  so  contradic'ory  and 
absurd  as  to  stamp  the  statements  regarding  them  as  unmistak- 
ably fictitious.  The  pictures,  by  theii  shadows,  are  evidence  of 
their  counterfeit  coinage.  The  contradictory  descriptions  of 
ice  conditions  on  the  Arctic  Sea,  and  the  obvious  motive  for  the 
conflicting  representations;  the  guileless  disagreement  of  Hen- 
son's  diary  with  Peary's  story  in  detail,  and  sentiment;  Bart- 
lett's  log,  Mitchell's  diagram,  and  numerous  other  discrepancies 
and  incongruities  that  have  been  exposed  in  the  preceding 
pages,  show  Peary's  narrative  to  be  clearly  the  creation  of 
a  romancer. 

A  few  loose  leaves,  alleged  to  have  been  torn  from  a  book 
for  "  facility  in  revision  ",  is  all  the  written  proof  offered.  There 
is  not  one  word  on  those  leaves,  not  one  figure  on  those  pages 

S54 


%^Jj| 


RecapUulaHon 


965 


which  could  not  have  been  put  there  by  any  one.  There  is 
some  pretense  that  this  could  not  be  done,  but  it  can  be  only 
pretense.  There  are  certain  infallible  criteria  for  detennining 
whether  a  story  is  fact  or  fiction.  Writer,  of  fiction  leed  good 
memories  and  thorough  understanding  of  human  nature  as 
well  as  of  natural  laws.  These  traits  are  not  included  in  Mr. 
Peary's  endowments.  Fiction  writers  are  inventors;  and  an 
inventor  must  be  able  to  keep  his  primary  thought  and  object 
cleariy  In  mind,  and  still  leave  his  intelligence  free  to  follow 
every  change  with  fine  distinction.  Inventors  make  mistakes. 
Fiction  writers  make  mistakes.  Cervantes,  a  genius  of  sur- 
passing brilliance,  made  mistakes.  Even  Shakespeare,  it  is 
said  by  literary  critics,  made  mistakes.  It  would  be  a  mistake 
for  instance  for  a  fiction  writer  to  refer  to  the  use  of  steam 
engines  or  telephones  when  relating  events  which  occurred 
prior  to  their  invention.  It  would  be  a  mistake  for  a  writer  to 
make  use  of  a  horse  whose  death  hf  id  already  described. 
No  argument  could  be  advanced  to  aeny  that  such  writing  is 
fiction.  Mistakes  in  writing  fiction  are  of  an  entirely  different 
character,  and  are  easily  distinguished  from  those  which  occur 
in  a  narrative,  or  in  related  facts. 

Peary  was  obviously  inventing  in  his  description  of  his 
alleged  travels  about  the  Pole.  He  was  evidently  creating 
plausible  conditions  which  required  an  entirely  different  turn 
of  mind  from  that  of  an  explorer  or  of  a  narrator.  If  he  were 
recording  facts  or  chronicling  events,  he  would  not  be  likely  in  a 
single  statement  to  mistake  the  clock  time  by  6  hours,  the  direc- 
tion of  the  sim  by  69  degrees,  and  say  in  one  description  that 
he  was  traveling  northward,  and  then  in  another  description  of 
the  same  traveb  prove  that  the  direction  was  southward.  He 
would  not  write  in  a  diary  that  he  took  an  observation  at  noon, 
and  then  enter  in  that  diary  that  same  observation  in  figures, 
as  being  taken  \i-£0  p.  m.  and  repeat  these  mistakes  in  every 
descript'  in  and  have  all  this  happen  at  one  camp,  when  each 
item  in  the  circiunstances  was  a  matter  of  vital  consequence. 
Such  errors  indicate  unmistakably  that  they  are  fiction.    They 


I 


A' 

I- 


I J 


4 


k 


956 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


show  that  the  writer  is  not  skilled  m  balancing  imaginaiy  facta. 
ay  the  same  reasoning.  MitcheU's  (or  Tittmann's)   dia- 
gram IS  not  a  mistake.    It  is  manifesUy  the  act  of  a  counter- 
feiter, predetermined  and  premeditated.    The  errors  in  that 
diagram  are  not  clerical  errors,  or  errors  of  memory,  neither  are 
they  matters  of  ignorance.    Tittmann,  who  vouched  for  this 
diagram  was  not   deceived.    He  is  the  Superintendent  of  the 
Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  of  the  United  States;  his  eyes  are 
famihar  with  maps.    Gannett,  the  dominating  mind  in  all  this 
iniquity    ,s  chief  geographer  of  the  United  States.     One  may 
have  tJie  faith  that  will  remove  a  momitein.  and  the  credulity 
of  an  mfant,  but  he  cannot,  in  his  senses,  truthfully  deny  that 
this  diagram  is  fabrication. 

This  diagram  and  the  report  accompanying  it  may  be 

H:::^;f?m'^f^'"""f''""'^''°"-  The^p^rtsign^by 
Hugh  G.  MitcheU.  is  simply  a  figment  of  imagination.    I  doubt 

M^^  rS^^r.^  ^7^  "1  '*•  '^•'^  ^''^"*  '*^"  •»  downright  fraud. 
MitcheU.  Duval  and  even  Tittmami  were,  in  my  ooinion.  merely 
cat  s  paws  in  this  transaction.  And  it  is  my  further  belief  that 
the  rmgleadera  m  aU  of  this  villainy  are  Chester.  Gamiett. 
Grosvenor.  and  Peaiy.  What  they  have  done  or  caused  to  b^ 
done.  IS  not,  m  my  opinion,  a  matter  of  mistaking  facts,  but 
apparently  attemptmg  ficUon  and  practicing  fraud. 

Aside  from  a  question  of  veracity  in  Peaiy's  various 
allegations  as  to  conditions  of  the  ice  surface  between  Cape 
Columbja  and  the  Pole,  the  conflictions  themselves  indicate 
unnastakably    that    they    are    fiction.      For    instance,    the 
^stance  from  Cape  Columbia  to  the  alleged  Bartlett  Camp  is 
«80  miles.     From  that  Camp  to  the  Pole  is  138  miles.    There- 
fore,  one-tkird  of  the  ocean  space  aUeged  to  have  been  traveled 
over.  IS  north  of  the  Bartlett  Camp,  and  two-thirds  is  south  of 
that  camp.     We  can  unfold  the  truth  better  and  show  whether 
Znl    f^t  ''*"'*"'  descriptions  are  ficUon.  by  imaginmg  that 
each  of  the  separate  descriptions  as  detailed  on  the  journey, 
IS  true.    That  is   to  say.  we  may  admit    that  he  gives  valid 
reasons  why  it  took  him  over  30  days  going  north  to  cover  the 


ReeapUulaiion 


857 


iuxhthird*  space,  and  gives  valid  reasons  why  it  took  him  leas 
than  8  days  in  returning  south  from  the  Pole  to  cover  the  om- 
third  space. 

Admit  that  Peary  actually  found  the  ice  conditions  as  he 
has  described  them  on  his  journey  fr  >m  land  to  the  Bartlett 
Camp,  and  as  all  writers  preceding  him  over  ice  floes  have 
imiformly  found  and  described  them  to  have  been  impassably 
rough,  tortuous,  and  broken  by  open  leads  of  water.  And 
admit  it  to  be  true  that  from  there  <m,  to  the  North  Pole  and 
back  agun,  fortune  smiled  upon  him  eveiy  hour,  presenting 
to  him  unheard  of  and  undreamed  of  Arctic  conditions;  smooth 
level  ice  with  hard  surfaces,  perfectly  adapted  to  easy  ftud  rapid 
traveling,  and  that  it  remained  in  that  conditifHi  undisturbed 
long  enough  for  him  to  accomplish  his  task  of  going  v. j  the  North 
Pole  and  returning  safely  to  the  Bartlett  Camp,  thereby  enabling 
him  to  make  the  speed  he  has  claimed. 

Had  such  conditions  in  truth  existed  they  would  have 
seemed  to  him,  as  they  would  have  seemed  to  anyone  else,  to 
have  been  almost  miraculous.  He  would  have  considered  them  a 
divine  dispr-jsation  in  his  favor.  At  all  events  they  would  have 
been  such  a  blessing  as  would  have  appealed  to  his  gratitude 
for  such  phenomenal  good  fortime.  Those  seven  and  one-half 
days'  absence  north  of  Camp  Bartlett  with  those  ezceptiimal 
conditions,  over  that  heretofore  imtrodden  space,  would  have 
been  so  photographed  in  his  mind  as  to  have  been  c(»stantly 
before  his  eyes  as  a  panorama  through  all  future  years. 

If  this  had  been  his  actual  experience  he  would  not  possibly 
have  written  after  his  return  to  civilization*  "There  is  no 
land  between  Cape  Columbia  and  the  North  Pole  and  no 
smooth  and  very  little  level  ice. "  Then  in  order  to  show  further 
that  none  of  this  "very  little  level  ice"  was  north  of  the  Bart- 
lett Camp,  and  that  n<me  of  it  was  even  north  of  Borup  Camp, 
btd  that  Mofit  wa»  sovtii  of  ike  big  lead,  and  adjoining  the  land 
he  writes  in  the  next  sentence  "For  a  few  miles  only  after  leaving 
the  land  we  had  level  going.    As  for  those  few  miles,  we  were 

•North  PoU,  Page  194. 


SS8 


H<u  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


11  '^f.' 


7    '    ' 
,  i 


on  the  glacial  fringe."  For  erne  to  be  convinced  that  every 
phase  of  this  8toor  is  fiction  one  only  needs  to  look  at  the  record 
of  his  mapches,*  when  he  alleges  he  was  traveling  over  the 
Identical  level  ice.  when  every  man  and  dog  were  fresh,  and 
every  sled  was  .ew.  and  notice  that  his  greatest  day's  march 
was  18  miles,  and  that  aU  the  marches  over  the  "only  level  ice" 
on  the  journey,  starting  from  land  were  as  foUows:  10. 1«.  13  11 
1«,  12.  18,  10.  6,  6.  ...  11. 

The  first  description   that  there  is  no  smooth  or  level  ice 

r'll^         ^^^  '""«*  "^"^  ^*^*  ^"  ^^^  «  his  book  as 
It  stood,  and  no  one  could  have  truthfully  told  whether  it  was 
fiction  or  fact,  truth  or  lies.    Every  word  of  it  might  have  been 
faction  and  have  remained  undetected.    And  if  the  writer  had 
l>een  skilled  m  fiction  ^ork,  and  had  thereafter  kept  Us  prior 
thoughts  and  phm  constanUy  in  his  mind,  and  have  remembered 
that  he  must  not  vaty  this  description  in  subsequent  paragraphs, 
there  would  have  been  no  way  perhaps  to  detect  the  deception. 
Interesting  novels  are  so  written;  they  draw  the  line  so  fine  that 
a  reader  is  chamed  to  the  continuous  thread.    But  when  Peary 
in  subsequent  chapters  became  so  enthsiastic  over  the  brilliancy 
of  his  new  thoughts,  as  to  forget  the  scope  of  his  previous  ones, 
and  m  detail  then  describe  one-third  of  the  ocean  space  as  being 
perfectiy  smooth  and  level,  and  even  before  he  got  along  in  his 
!rrr?  ^»        ^^  °'  ^*  imaginary  traveUng.  he  describes 
what  he  alleges  to  have  already  seen,  as  being  "as  level  as  the 
glacial  fnnge  from  Heckla  to  Cape  Columbia  and  harder."  he 
furnishes  an  mfallible  criterion,  by  which  is  proven  that  his 
s-oiy  is  fiction. 

xr.  ?T^"*^*'  .«f  «"  th«  evidence  oflfered  by  Tittmann  and 
Mitchell  IS.  without  exception,  intended  to  prove  that  the 
observaUons  submitted  by  Peaiy  show  that  Camp  Jessup  was 
not  on  ongitude  TO"  west  or  Cape  Columbia  meridian,  but  was 
on  the  137°  west;  and  inasmuch  as  statement  No.  1  is  omitted 
from  Peary  s  bookf,  which  omission  can  be  for  no  other  purpose 

'Diagnm  3. 

^North  Pole. 


RteapUulation 


than  to  remove  a  contradiction;  it  must  follow,  that  the  inal 
decision  by  Peary,  Gannett,  Chester  and  Tittmann  is  tha  the 
record  shall  stand  vix.,  that  Camp  Jessup,  as  proven  by  the 
observations  presented,  was  on  the  lS7th  meridian  west. 
This  is  now  recorded,  and  is  as  fixed  and  firm  as  Peary  and  his 
friends  can  make  it.  Can  this  be  a  record  of  facts?  Scientist* 
may  answer. 

In  all  the  history  of  Polar  Sea  sledge  traveUnt;,  there  has 
never  yet  been  a  day  so  favorable,  a  wind  so  ff'-  stretch  of 
ice  surface  so  smooth,  a  human  being  so  stror 
that  a  loaded  sledge  on  a  continuous  journey 
ported  SO  nautical  miles  in  one  day's  march. 
Parry  struggled  northward  in  1897  in  a  vain  f 
up  a  daily  advance  of  5  miles.  Nansen  mj 
struggle,  with  the  usual  result,  against  unrel 
No  comcidenoes  such  as  Peary  relates  fell 
Nansen's  former  experiences  with  Arctic  wilds 
had  not  given  him  that  prescience,  that  preh 
penetrating  vision,  with  which  Peary  and 
geographers  are  gifted.  Nansen  could  not  » 
from  his  ship's  side  what  Tittmann  saw  *  am  Wasiungton; 
what  Peaiy  saw  from  the  Bartlett  Canp;  a  i«*vel  n-  ^ilflfai  n 
which,  and  by  which  Peary  could  gallop  ng  !  '*» 
day,  and  into  fame,  crossing  north  over  V> ;.  miles 
south  across  the  Polar  Sea  from  the  Pole  to  land.  > 
detained  over  two  hours. 

No  fair  minded,  thoughtful  person  can  exami' 
in  all  its  bearings,  as  to  the  alleged  conditions,  the  sp 
and  maintained  after  leaving  the  Bartlett  Camp  on 
day,  1909,  and  reach  any  other  rational  conclusion  than  that 
it  is  an  imaginary  narrative  from  that  day  on  until  Peary 
reached  land.  It  may  be  confidently  predicted  that  eventually 
this  cOTiclusion  will  not  be  seriously  contested  or  questioned. 
Interested  persons  with  mercenary  ends  to  accomplish;  or  im- 
plicated partisans  desiring  to  sustain  themselves,  may  by  so- 
phistiy  and  personalities  attempt  to  divert  attenticm  from  the 


igs  so  fit 

be  trans- 

reno-^T-tJ 

f  to  keep 

univtri^ 

ice  flee*. 

Sanse'i's   lot. 

1  Arct      woes 

>  w         the* 

■e    Wttsh  '^ton 

the     HiUUit^ 


in 


n  a 
■8,  then 

nf»t  1h" 

>>ry 
taaied, 
i  F«»ls' 


'fT'wf: 


MO 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeovered 


aitounding  revelation  and  thereby  break  its  force.  But  I 
venture  to  say  no  reasoning  from  the  narrative  iLielf  will  be 
resorted  to.  No  reviewing  of  the  facts,  or  attempts  at  elucida- 
tion will  be  indulged  in,  for  the  sufficient  reason,  that  more 
light  would  be  thrown  thereby  upon  actions  which  are  now 
exposed. 

I  have  no  desire  to  pursue  Peary  personally.  I  have  no 
p-'evance  and  no  motive  for  assailing  him.  He  had  no  more 
gt  ne  friend,  when  he  started  rorth,  than  the  writer  of  these 
lines.  But  I  have  had  occasion  in  preparing  these  pages  to  have 
recourse  to  his  book  Nearest  the  Pole,  wherein  he  claims  to  have 
reached  87'  6'  in  1906,  and  from  such  study  as  I  have  given  the 
matter,  I  doubt  his  allegation.  The  question  as  to  whether  or 
not  he  actually  went  that  far  north  in  1906  is  in  a  measure 
immaterial,  and  has  no  bearing  on  the  present  question  via., 
"Did  he  reach  the  North  Pole  in  1909?"  The  only  bearing 
it  could  have  (if  he  did  not  go  to  87"  6'  in  1906)  would  be  in  the 
indicaticHi  that  "false  in  one,  false  in  all."  However,  Peary's 
claim  of  reaching  87°  6'  m  1906  was  accepted  as  true  the  world 
over.  I  do  not  know  that  a  word  has  been  uttered  in  doubt 
as  to  the  truth  of  this  claim. 

The  indications  are  that  he  did  not  reach  87°  6'  in  1906. 
The  alleged  trip  north  of  the  big  lead  in  1906  is  framed  w  h 
timbers  very  similar  to  those  used  for  the  trip  north  of  the 
BartleU  Camp  in  1909.  The  same  architect  evidently  designed 
them  both.  Peary  had  the  same  difficulty  in  1906  as  he  did  in 
1909  in  making  northing  while  in'company  with  his  supporting 
•>artie8.  It  was  impossible  for  him  to  advance  further  north  in 
190G  with  them  than  to  the  Big  Lead.  But  on  April  2,  (1906) 
the  anniversary  of  which  marks  the  leaving  of  the  Bartlett 
Camp  in  1909,  immediately  after  he  became  permanently 
separated  from  his  white  companions,  and  was  alone  with  the 
same  trusty  Henson  and  his  Eskimos  (just  as  he  wa««  in  1909) 
he  started  to  make  rapid  speed  to  the  north,  and  a  new  record. 
He  was  not  equipped  at  that  time  (1906)  because  of  this  separa- 
tion   to  pretend  to  have  reached  the  North  Pole.    But  his 


RtecpUtdation 


allegfttkms  are  that  after  his  separatitxi  from  the  white  men,  he 
eclipsed  all  records  in  s|)eed  over  polar  ice,  making  ^H  to  S  miles 
on  hour,  SO  miles  a  day  and  thereby  claims  to  have  reached  a 
point  Sg  miles  farther  north  than  the  record  point  of  Cagnil  He 
then  returned,  just  as  he  claims  to  have  done  in  1900  when 
alone,  "  in  the  tracks  of  the  outward  march, "  all  the  way  back 
to  the  big  lead,  where  he  had  parted  with  his  white  companions. 
But  then  the  ocean  currents  operated,  he  lost  the  trail,  and 
shaping  his  course  due  south  reached  the  Greenland  Coast  ai 
Cape  Neumeyer,  having  drifted  while  away  from  the  trail, 
from  Longitude  74"  to  Tx>n;^itude  47*  or  practically  87  degrees 
to  the  east.    The  rn*  the  book  North  Pole  with  the  false 

plotting  of  the  ^ '  .te  masques  this  deception. 

He  pretends,  <i>arently  for  diversion,  to  have  been  some- 
what disappointed  with  this  success,  as  it  appeared  to  be  his 
last  chance  to  try  for  the  North  Pole  <m  account  of  his  advanced 
age,  and  his  infirmities.  He  published  his  account  of  this 
expedition.  His  claims  therein  were  accepted  as  true.  He, 
therefore,  decided  upon  another  trip,  and  another  book.* 
In  any  case,  an  analysis  of  his  last  story  shows  the 
inevitable,  irresistible,  indisputable  conclusion  that  he  did  not 
go  to  the  North  Pole. 

It  is  not  uicumbent  upon  me  in  a  work  of  this  character  to 
prove  or  even  to  show  that  Peary  did  not  reach  the  North  Pole 
in  1909  as  he  claims.  It  is  sufficient  if  it  is  made  plain  that 
he  has  not  proved  his  case.  The  burden  is  entirely  upon  him  to 
present  a  convincing  and  indisputable  array  of  facts,  maps  and 
records.  This  he  has  not  done.  In  so  far  as  the  evidence 
submitted  is  concerned,  he  has  not  been  to  the  Pole.  He  has 
not  acted  frankly.  The  evidence  is  ample  and  convincing  that 
by  self-incriminating  testimony,  he  is  an  impo8*'or;  that  his 
narrative  descnb'"<?  his  travels  beyond  the  Bartlett  Camp  is  a 
myth,  the  py  »ia  •,  .       -eative  imagination;  that  the  pension 

*It  is  poMib.    'list  '  y  iui<  lag  ti  \%  knowledge.  Peary  took  the  cue  later  for 
ipringing  the  M     \f'  tfiuky  dt'mr  .-.  Cook. 


« 


862 


Hcu  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


secured  with  the  aid  of  the  clique  supporting  him,  was  obtained 
by  fraud.  Consequently,  explorers  ambitious  for  renown  need 
not  lose  hope — opportimity  is  still  open.  Those  who  have  the 
lure  of  the  Arctic  tugging  at  their  hearts,  with  a  thirst  for  great 
achievement,  may  yet  enter  the  contest.  As  far  as  Peary  is 
concerned,  the  North  Pole,  as  a  world  prize,  is  yet  to  be  won. 

Having  reasonably  established  this  fact,  it  is  proper, 
important  and  due  to  Peary,  in  view  of  the  gravity  of  this 
indictment,  to  show  a  possible  or  plausible  motive  for  this 
deception,  which,  if  not  convincing,  or  concurrent,  is  at  least  in 
harmony  with  facts.  Peary's  mind  cannot,  of  course,  be  read, 
nor  can  we  interpret  exactly  how  or  why  he  decided  upon  the 
course  he  has  taken.  But  may  not  certain  deductions  be  made 
since  he  refuses  to  enlighten  us  further?  The  opinions  forced 
upon  the  writer  may  differ  from  those  of  others,  but  these 
chapters  would  hardly  be  considered  complete  if  in  bringing 
them  to  a  close,  these  opinions  were  not  given.  They  are  sub- 
mitted in  the  belief  that  they  present  a  fairly  plausible  inter- 
pretation of  this  mystery. 

Suppose  Peary  to  be  approaching  the  Bartlett  Camp  en- 
route  north.  His  experience  up  to  this  point,  his  miles  of  daily 
travel,  his  observations  of  ice  conditions,  the  season's  advance, 
the  long  distance  and  imknown  expanse  ahead,  all  pass  through 
his  mind.  He  sees  clearly  that  to  proceed  much  farther  would 
be  suicide  and  massacre.  The  distance  yet  to  travel  is  188 
nautical  miles  to  the  Pole,  and  418  miles  from  the  Pole  back  to 
land.  It  is  the  1st  of  April.  Whatever  speed  has  been  made  to 
this  point  under  so  many  favorable  conditions  cannot  possibly  be 
expected  henceforth.  Remembering  that  4  miles  per  day  is  an 
average  of  Polar  Sea  sledging  work  without  supporting  parties, 
and  assuming  the  possibility  of  maintaining  it,  this  rate  would 
bring  him  back  to  land  in  136  days,  or  on  the  14th  of  August. 
The  bitter  truth  is  forced  upon  him  that  to  reach  the  Pole  and 
return  to  land  is  impossible.  But  to  turn  back  at  his  age,  on 
his  last  trip  is  to  end  his  career  in  failure.  Having  spent  the 
best  years  of  his  life  in  attempting  to  gratify  this  ambition,  to 


Recapiitdaiion 


S6S 


gain  everlasting  fame  as  the  greatest  of  discoverers;  he  could 
not,  must  not,  wiU  not,  bear  the  anguish  of  this  dreadful  fate. 
Considering  the  inexorable  conditions  which  are  now  unfolded 
to  him  in  their  awfid  reality,  he  realizes  that  he  has  reached  the 
risis  of  his  career.  One  of  three  things  he  must  do,  his  decision 
must  be  instant  and  final.  First:  Openly  to  acknowledge 
failure  and  the  sad  termination  of  a  great  polar  career,  with  the 
remote  but  humiliating  possibility  of  Cook's  return  in  triumph, 
over  a  possibly  more  propitious  route,  and  to  the  glory  of  the 
one  achievement  that  has  been  the  ho[>e  and  ambition  of  his 
life.  Second:  To  proceed  to  certain  death  in  a  futile  attempt 
to  encompass  the  impossible.  Third:  Imposture,  with  riches 
and  glory.  The  temptation  is  colossal.  Less  than  this  has 
wrecked  greater  men. 

The  last  alternative  is  a  "gold  brick"  to  the  public,  but 
everlasting  fame  to  one  who  embraces  it.  The  price  is  enor- 
mous. It  is,  moreover,  an  opportimity  never  again  to  be 
presented.  He  casts  the  die!  Conscience  is  easily  soothed. 
The  record  to  the  Pole,  even  though  successful  with  all  the 
trials,  risks,  physical  and  mental  strains — what  is  it  after  all  in 
the  last  analysis  but  entries  in  a  diary?  The  achievement  in 
any  event  cannot  passibly  be  proven  to  the  world  who  cannot 
witness  it,  and  might  be  doubted  in  any  event.  Why  risk  so 
much  for  the  plaudits  of  a  fickle  humanity  at  this  time  of  life? 

Having  determined  on  a  coiu'se  of  action,  he  must  be  certain 
of  his  work.  A  diary  can  be  fixed  here  and  now,  as  well  as  then 
and  there,  if  managed  light.  Matt  Henson,  a  body  servant  of 
23  years'  service,  is  absolutely  subservient  to  Peary,  without 
even  a  wish  or  thought  to  do  anything  but  serve  him  faithfully. 
He  was  tested  in  a  similar  venture  in  1906.  Peaty  is  safe  with 
him.  Neither  Henson  nor  the  E^mos  need  see  or  know,  or 
have  any  means  of  knowledge,  as  to  directions,  distances,  or 
time.  If  a  statement  is  made  in  their  presence,  it  13  accepted 
without  question.  They  all  had  blind  confidence  and  gave  no 
thought  of  the  morrow.    But  Bartlett  is  a  mftp  of  thoughts,  of 


li 


n 


ifc. 


. 


SM 


Hm  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


observation,  of  responsibility.    In  a  matter  of  deception,  it  ii 
unsafe  to  place  confidence  in  such  a  man. 

Whatever  else  may  be  considered  afterward,  it  is  essential 
that  Bartlett  be  disposed  of.  He  is  ordered  to  return.  He  is 
yet  necessary  to  Peary  in  many  ways,  and  will  be  in  the  future. 
His  friendship  is  all  important,  and  every  effort  must  be  made 
to  preserve  it.  Praise,  hearty  appreciation,  must  always  be 
expressed  for  his  great  service,  even  flattery  if  it  serves.  He 
will  be  a  bulwark  if  a  controversy  should  ever  arise. 

This  part  of  the  program  being  successfully  arranged,  the 
next  and  only  serious  one  remaining  is  the  sounding  apparatus. 
Soundings  are  too  positive  and  dangerous  in  a  case  like  this. 
They  may  be  reviewed  in  the  future.  If  the  gear  could  only,  in 
some  way,  be  accidentally  lost  in  the  sea!  The  samples  of 
soundings  beyond  49  miles  out  from  land  "tcere  lost  toith 
Marvin. "  The  soundmgs  made  by  Bartlett  found  "  no  bottom  " 
so  brought  up  nothing.  The  one  near  the  Pole  "lost  line  and 
sinker;  all  that  remained." 

The  coast  is  now  clear.  Not  one  scrap  of  evidence  except 
observations  can  ever  be  checked  up.  No  other  serious  thing 
exists.  Peary  makes  5  marches,  who  knows  in  what  direction? 
At  the  end  of  the  5th,  he  announces  to  the  willing  ears  of  his 
companions  the  glad  news  that  their  long  struggle  in  over. 
"The  Pole  at  last!"  One  can  imagine  how  sweet  that  mounded 
to  those  weary  men.  Peary  takes  observations,  walks  some 
distance  this  way  and  that,  lest  some  error  in  calculations  might 
rob  him  of  the  solid  assurance  that  he  actually  had  reached  the 
Earth's  axis.  A  flag  is  planted  and  photographed;  the  deed  is 
done.  The  men  are  admonished  to  bear  distinctly  in  mind  the 
number  of  marches  from  Bartlett's  Camp.  It  may  be  important 
in  history.  They  are  all  equally  heroes,  but  they  must  remem- 
ber these  facts,  as  their  part  of  the  glory  depends  upon  it. 
Whether  this  theory  be  a  correct  one,  or  not,  it  nevertheless 
checks  out  and  harmonizes  most  things  ;io  far. 

The  foregoing  theory  develops  other  speculations  which 
invite  thought.    If  Peary  did  not  go  to  the  Pole  from  the 


>«fe^*i 


Recapiiulatum 


865 


Bartlett  Camp,  where  did  he  go?  This  is  known  only  to  those 
who  were  with  him,  probably  not  even  to  them.  In  an  analyti- 
cal treatise,  it  is  not  necessary  to  speculate  upon  this  point. 
Many  writers  have  attempted  to  prove  a  satisfactory  alibi. 
Whatever  is  attempted  along  this  line  must  first,  of  course, 
accept  some  datum  as  being  true,  as  a  starting  point,  or  as  a 
basis  upon  which  to  erect  a  theory.  But  what  part  is  true? 
What  facts  are  established  beyond  doubt,  in  such  a  labyrinth 
of  contradictions,  in  such  chaos? 

One  theory  is  advanced,  accepting  as  true  the  fact  that 
Bartlett  and  Peary  were,  on  April  1,  1909,  in  camp  together 
at  87°  47'.  On  that  day  at  3  p.  m.,  Bartlett  left  that  camp  with 
an  outfit  of  dogs,  men  and  sledges,  to  return  to  land.  Twelve 
hours  later,  April  2,  at  5  a.  m.,  Peary  left  the  same  camp  with 
another  outfit  of  men,  dogs,  and  sledges,  and  disappeared  on  the 
Polar  Sea,  bound  ostensibly  for  the  North  Pole.  Eighteen  days 
thereafter,  (on  April  18)  at  about  10  p.  m.,  Bartlett  emerges 
from  the  polar  ice  at  Cape  Columbia.  Foiu*  and  one-third 
days  later,  or  at  6  a.  m.,  April  28,  twenty-one  days  after  his 
disappearance,  Peary  emerged  from  the  polar  ice  at  the  same 
place.  Cape  Columbia.  Bartlett  reached  the  Roosevelt  at  Cape 
Sheridan  the  next  day  (April  24).  Peary  reached  the  Roosevelt 
April  27,  three  days  later.  But  Peary  stopped  two  of  those 
three  days  at  Cape  Columbia  to  rest.  Peary  and  Bartlett 
were,  therefore,  absent  from  the  so-called  Bartlett  Camp  at 
87°  47'  according  to  this  story,  and  were  out  on  the  polar  ice 
18  and  28  days  respectively.  They  started  12  hours  apart, 
and  arrived  at  Cape  Columbia  4^  days  apart.  Peary  lingers 
two  days  at  Cape  Columbia,  hence,  reached  Cape  Sheridan 
three  days  after  Bartlett. 

What  is  the  inference  from  all  this?  What  is  the  natural 
supposition?  What  is  a  reasonable  presumption  from  these 
remarkable  admissions  and  coincidences?  Or  what  woidd  be  a 
fair  way  to  look  at  them  as  long  as  Bartlett  is  silent,  and  Peary 
only  is  allowed  to  speak?  Here  are  allied  facts  presented  by 
Peary  himself .    Whether  the  data  are  true  or  not,  is  immaterial 


it- 

i 


m 


'■4    -?!{ 


J 


866 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


at  this  juncture,  since  a  comparison  of  these  claims  has  already 
been  reviewed  in  detail.  It  is  not  necessarily  incumbent  upon 
an  analyzer  to  pursue  it  further.  Nevertheless,  in  the  absence 
of  knowledge,  theories  may  be  advanced  that  are  plausible,  and 
if  no  satisfactory  explanation  is  given,  they  are  justified;  and 
whether  justified  or  not  will  be  indulged  in  by  every  penetrating 
mind. 

Peary  and  Bartlett  may  have  returned  south  together  from 
87'  47'.  If  they  did,  and  kept  together,  they  would,  of  course, 
have  arrived  together.  Whatever  date  Bartlett  actually 
arrived  at  land,  if  it  could  be  known  truthfully,  and  assuming 
that  he  was  at  87°  47',  would  indicate  the  proper  consumption 
of  time  for  the  return  trip. 

If  Peary's  story  is  true,  in  so  far  as  that  he  left  87°  47'  north 
latitude  12  hours  after  Bartlett,  and  arrived  at  land  4/^  days 
after  he  did,  they  perhaps  traveled  together  most  of  the  way, 
the  few  days  separation,  if  they  did  separate,  being  arranged 
for  purposes  of  confusion.  On  the  other  hand,  if  they  did 
travel  together  on  the  homeward  trip,  which  seems  possible, 
they  were  in  collusion.  They  had  jointly  agreed  upon  an  im- 
posture. When  and  where  did  they  make  this  agreement  if  it 
was  made?  Was  it  in  camp  at  87°  47'?  If  so,  enough  has  been 
said. 

But  if  they  agreed  at  the  4th  camp,  where  they  were  idle 
for  seven  days,  waiting  to  cross  the  big  Irad,  they  probably 
never  went  to  87°  47'.  There  was  no  need  of  going  so  far,  to 
consummate  the  plan.  They  probably  turned  back  as  soon  as 
Marvin  was  out  of  their  way  perhaps  at  87°  38',  and  Marvin 
may  have  been  dismissed  for  that  piupose.  When  Marvin  had 
been  absent  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  they  may  have  followed 
him,  and  waited  for  time,  and  to  separate. 

This  last  theory  equalizes  the  figures,  making  all  reaso..ably 
harmonious,  infinitely  more  so  than  does  a  trip  to  the  Pole. 
It  is  nevertheless  only  a  theory,  and  there  being  so  little  of 
acknowledged  fact  for  a  basis,  must  necessarily,  for  a  while  at 
least,  remain  theory.    It  may  account,  however,  for  the  notable 


RecapUtdaiion 


367 


intimacy  that  has  existed  between  Pee^y  and  Bartlett  since 
their  return;  the  obsequious  manner  in  which  Peary  has  con- 
stantly patronized  Bartlett,  the  fulsome  eulogies  bestowed 
upon  him  everywhere,  the  honors  aca  >rded  him  in  soliciting  his 
companionship  on  his  lecture  tnwr  in  Europe,  when  he  professed 
to  have  preferred  Henson  to  share  the  honors  on  the  Arctic  Sea. 
If  Peary  had  contbued  this  preference  and  had  honored  Henson 
as  a  co-discoverer,  it  would  not  have  attracted  so  much  invidious 
notice.  Indeed,  it  would  have  been  proper  and  right,  as  it 
would  have  added  interest  and  attractiveness  to  his  lectures; 
but  why  Bartlett  and  not  Henson  or  Borup,  or  Goodsell,  or 
McMillan? 

Peary  has  said  that  he  did  not  want  his  own  glory  dimmed 
by  sharing  it  with  Bartlett.*  This  excuse  is  believed  to  be  a 
precedent  among  explorers.  The  glory  due  Nansen,  is  not 
dimmed  by  the  companionship  of  Johansen.  No  shadow 
is  cast  on  the  fame  of  Magellan  or  Columbus  by  their  comrades. 
Amundsen  equipiied  each  of  his  companions  with  a  sextant  and 
compass;  and  when  at  the  South  Pole,  he  placed  each  of  those 
companions  in  such  a  position,  that  all  of  them  and  any  of  them 
might  claim  in  history,  and  with  truth,  an  equal  participation 
in  his  great  discovery.  He  even  permitted  each  of  them  to 
make  his  own  observations  every  hour  for  24  hours;  and  make 
his  own  computation  and  corrections,  and  let  the  deserving 
competitor  have  such  honor  as  may  consequently  fall  to  him. 
He  himself  halted  when  near  the  Pole,  and  lest  the  exact  spot 
might  not  then  have  been  visited,  he  invited  volimteers  to 
scout  for  many  miles  in  any  directicm,  so  that  on  their  return 
to  Norway,  experts  might  determine  who  it  was,  that  was  first 
the  nearest  to,  or  on,  the  magic  point.  Instead  of  dimming 
the  glory  that  is  due  to  Amundsen,  this  action  adds  luster  to 
undying  fame. 

If  it  turns  out  to  be  a  fact  (and  the  truth  will  undoubtedly 
he  known  eventually)  that  Bartlett  and  Peary  agreed  upon  this 
imposture,  then  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  they  never  went 

♦Test,  Page  74. 


IB"! 


ill 


868 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


ev«n  to  the  Marvin  Camp  85"  28'.  Furthermore,  there  Is  no 
evidence  except  that  oflfered  by  Peary  and  Bartlett,  that  Peary 
ever  went  beyond  85 "  23'  where  Borup  turned  back,  186  miles 
from  land.  How  trustworthy  their  testimony  is  has  been  amply 
demonstrated  herein. 

There  are  those  who  insist  on  an  entirely  difiFerent  theory; 
or  on  a  supplementary  theory,  viz.,  that  the  indications  are  that 
after  leaving  Etah  for  home,  Peary  and  Bartlett  for  the  first 
time  concocted  in  detail  the  scheme  of  claiming  the  attain- 
ment of  the  Pole,  to  offset  Cook's  claim  which  then  became 
known  to  them;  that  Peary's  lingering  off  that  coast,  many 
weeks  ostensibly  killing  walruses,  was  perhaps  for  the  purpose 
of  completing  the  plans.  It  is  thought  to  be  mexplicable  that 
with  this  valuable  discovery  in  his  breast,  he  could  waste  time 
stacking  up  wahnis  meat  to  leave  for  Eskimos  who  needed  no 
such  assistance.  For  later  on,  when  time  was  precious,  and 
for  piuposes  of  haste,  wireless  messages  brought  the  substance 
of  Cook's  claims,  Peary  remained  again  for  weeks  on  the  re  icy 
coast  of  Labrador,  beyond  civilization  or  access,  ostensibly 
cleaning  his  ship,  which  seems  a  novel  procedure  to  experienced 
seamen. 

However,  it  is  indisputable  that  when  Peary's  narrative, 
upon  which  alone  his  claim  rests,  has  been  tested,  in  the  crucibles 
of  criticism,  discussion  and  analysis,  possibly  also  by  the 
attrition  of  anger,  jealousy  and  partisanship,  the  truth  will 
undoubtedly  come  to  the  surface  and  possibly  the  real  dis- 
coverer will  be  known. 

Notwithstanding  all  these  certainties,  there  is  some  positive 
evidence,  and  some  positive  knowledge  from  which  conclusions 
may  be  fairly  drawn.  If  Bartiett  and  Peary  actually  landed 
at  Cape  Columbia  after  54  days'  absence  north,  it  is  quite 
certain  that,  after  Borup  turned  back,  they  turned  toett,  instead 
of  continuing  on  north. 

They  may  for  safety  have  recrossed  to  the  south  side  of  the 
big  lead  to  get  on  the  land  ice,  and  then  made  their  way  west. 
But  with  a  steady  constant  easterly  current,  such  as  Borup 


ReeapUulaHon 


869 


describes,  it  would  have  been  absolutely  impossible  for  them  to 
ever  have  returned  to  Cape  Columbia  unless  they  kept  to  the 
west  of  or  on  the  Columbia  Meridian.  If  they  had  kept  north 
of  the  big  lead  where  the  current  was  approximately  five  miles 
per  day,  they  would  have  needed  to  have  traveled  on  that 
drifting  ice  in  those  54  days  some  270  miles  to  the  west,  besides 
whatever  northing  or  southing  they  may  have  made,  scaling 
pressure  ridges  and  negotiating  open  leads  during  ail  that  time. 

They  would  have  been  fools  to  have  done  this,  to  have 
risked  themselves  to  the  north  of  the  lead,  unless  they  wished 
to  keep  out  of  sight  of  land  to  fool  the  men.  It  is  therefore 
almost  certain  that  after  the  return  of  Borup,  they  kept  on  the 
land  ice  and  kept  to  the  west. 

If  Peary  is  proven  a  falsifier  in  any  part  of  his  nanative, 
then  it  is  but  just  to  say  that  not  one  word  of  his  testimony 
should  be  accepted  that  relates  to  anything  north  of  Borup's 
last  camp  at  85'  2S'. 

Having  disposed  of  the  foregoing  problems,  the  query  now 
arises:  Has  the  United  States  Grovemment  placed  a  crown 
upon  the  wrong  brow?  Have  the  various  geographical  societies 
of  Europe  who  have  accepted  the  National  Geographic  Society's 
false  decision,  been  hanging  medals  on  the  wrong  breast? 
These  are  things  the  public  ought  to  know.  They  are  things 
the  truth  of  which  can  easily  be  ascertained.  Such  disclosure 
as  herein  presented  cannot,  of  coiirse,  be  accepted  upon  mere 
assumption.  It  must  be  further  proved  by  indubitable  evidence 
before  we  bring  the  blush  of  shame  to  so  many  honorable 
institutions.  Some  geographic  society  somewhere  in  the  world 
will  surely  have  among  its  members  a  scientist  of  unquestioned 
learning  arid  integrity  who  will  put  at  rest  for  all  time  such  a 
preposterous  and  scandalous  presiunption.  In  such  a  matter 
of  universal  interest  as  the  compiling  of  maps  for  the  guid  Ance 
and  instruction  of  future  generations  some  nation  will  certainly 
resent  the  fact  that  they  are  erroneously  and  fraudulently  made 
and  will  see  to  it  that  they  are  corrected. 

If  Peaiy  had  lapsed,  there  is  some  extenuation.    He  was 


i 

i 


,fiJr 

■e 


i 

i; 

•SB 
01' 


'f  T#r 


870 


Hot  ike  North  Pole  Been  Diacocered 


disappomted.  Jealousy  and  en\'y  may  have  been  uncontrollable. 
But  the  others  whose  motives  were  mercenary  or  malicious,  I 
beUeve  can  never  be  justified.  It  must  be  perfectly  clear  to 
anyone  who  has  given  these  Peary  claims  any  attention  what- 
ever, that  Peary  himself  and  the  members  of  the  National 
Geographic  Society  have  conjointly  and  most  shamefully  de- 
ceived not  only  the  administration  of  which  they  are  officers, 
but  the  whole  civilized  world.  A  distinguished  German 
author  has  written:  "After  all,  on  this  earth  the  one  thing 
that  is  insufferable,  whether  in  politics  or  religion,  whether  in 
private  or  national  affairs,  is  that  sham  should  go  on  pretendmg 
to  be  reality.— That  is  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Soul. " 

Congress  had  the  power  and  evidently  the  inclination  to 
affront  an  intelligent  civilization  by  making  a  mock  hero. 
But  science  and  history  will  not  coimtenance  perpetual  in- 
justice. Ultimately  the  truth  will  prevail.  The  evidence 
should  be  obtamed  now  while  it  is  available.  The  truth  of 
histoiy  demands  it.  Ahnost  in  the  shadow  of  the  White  House, 
in  the  government  household,  was  formed  a  gigantic  con- 
spiracy. It  would  not  be  consistent  for  the  Government, 
through  its  own  officers,  to  perpetrate  this  colossal  fraud  while 
ordinary  citizens  are  fined  and  imprisoned  for  petty  offences. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  without  the  influence  of  high 
government  position,  the  deception  herein  shown  could  not 
have  been  promulgated  without  detection.  Rear  Admiral 
Colby  M.  Chester  was  aae  of  the  Committee  of  the  National 
Geographic  Society,  an  active  partisan  member.  He  is  a 
retired  officer  permitted,  on  occasions  at  least,  to  wear  the 
ensign  of  the  Government.  Government  officers  are  <rften 
punished  and  degraded  for  actions  imbecoming  gentlemen, 
even  for  trivial  offences.  Will  the  Executive  Department,  ot 
Congress,  rest  content,  and  pass  unnoticed  this  open,  notorious, 
flagrant  tnuisacticm?  Will  they  remain  inactive  while  the 
facts  as  to  this  achievement  are  disputed?  WIl  they  permit 
the  whole  civilized  world  to  remain  in  doubt,  or  be  deceived,  as 
to  the  truthfukess  of  uttnances  of  its  distinguished  ofiken 


'A    (•■! 


ReeapUulation 


871 


in  such  an  important  affair?  Or  will  they  institute  an  impartial, 
thorough  investigation  of  this  whole  matter,  and  unfold  the 
truth  and  imprint  it  correctly  as  a  page  of  history? 

An  investigation,  with  authority  to  call  for  persons  and 
papers,  to  examine  all  living  members  of  the  expeditions,  the 
Eskimos,  Whitney  and  Pritchard,  and  call  for  all  the  original 
documents,  n^atives  and  diaries,  is  demanded  by  justice,  in 
order  that  the  exact  truth,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt, 
1  lay  be  established.  To  postpone  action  until  many  of  the 
parties  are  dead  would  amount  to  negligence  almost  criminal. 


PART   II— COOK 


!  i 


CHAPTER  I 
COOK'S  STORY  EXAMINED 


Granted  that  Pearj'  did  not  reach  the  North  Pole  in  1900. 
did  Cook  reach  the  Pole  in  1906?  The  answer  is  a  matter  of 
opinion,  baaed  on  the  confidence  that  Cook's  narrative  inspires. 
That  is  all  any  expk>rer  can  expect.  An  analyzer  can  only 
dissect  the  narrative  and  the  criticisms  made  by  others  upon  it 
in  order  to  show  to  what  extent  the  narrative  is  consistent  and 
to  what  extent  the  criticisms  are  scmnd. 

Cook's  claim  that  be  is  the  discovers  is  not  aSeda*  by 
what  Peary  did.  Cook  was  the  first  to  describe  condi  •  ns 
within  8  miles  of  the  North  Pole.  Peary  was  sec<Mul  and  uuA. 
The  two  descripticms  are  practically  identical.  If  th^  are 
both  false,  both  men  are  falsifiers,  but  even  so  it  is  still  possible 
that  Peary  plagiarised  Cook,  fc-  Peary's  version  was  later. 
If  both  narratives  are  true,  they  indicate  that  Cook  is  the 
discoverer,  because  he  could  not  otherwise  have  known  the 
truth.  Furthermore,  if  Peary  was  at  the  Pole,  and  made  hia 
descriptions  from  actual  observatimis  and  tells  the  truth,  his 
story  proves  craidusively,  being  identical,  that  Cook  preceded 
him.  It,  therefore,  has  little  effect  oa  Cook's  claim  whether  or 
not  Peaty  speaks  truth.  If  Cook  reached  the  Pole  in  1906, 
he  is  the  discoverer;  regardless  of  what  Peary  did  in  1909. 

This  b  understood  by  the  partisans  of  Peary,  hence  their 
almost  superhmnan  efforts  to  discredit  Cook.  The  motive, 
however,  of  Cook's  opponents  is  unimportant.  Whatevor 
the  truth  is  regarding  the  claims,  that  only,  must  and  will  in 
the  end,  be  established.  The  coaly  genuine  question  involved 
is,  does  either  explorer  sustain  hia  position,  or  rather  does  hia 
narrative  inspire  confidence? 

976 


y% 


876 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Nothing  in  Cook's  narrative,  at  first  reading,  seriously 
aroused  my  suspicions,  as  did  the  narrative  of  Peary.  The 
general  opinion  of  explorers  r  ^A  scientists*  is  that  Cook  presents 
a  reasonable  story.  It  -  ,  however,  of  interest  to  know  whether 
the  scientists  have  rei  A'.eA  a  sounri  conclusion;  whether  a 
deeper  research  will  dis<  m  r  any  serl  us,  suspicious,  or  errone- 
ous matter;  and  to  know  ^utliiw- .  r  not  the  research  is  thorough 
and  sufficient.  I  shall,  therefore,  take  up  Cook's  narrative, 
somewhat  after  the  manner  followed  in  the  review  of  Peary's 
writings,  examining  fu.st  the  claims  for  speed,  then  shadows, 
observations,  and  such  other  features  as  appear  of  mterest. 
We  may  find  something  in  Cook's  narrative,  that  may  be 
doubted.  We  shall  find  nothing  therein  that  is  proof  of  his 
claim.  But  we  may  see  if  anything  can  be  foimd  that  is  in- 
consistent with  a  belief  that  he  reached  the  Pole. 

K  Cook  has  written  anything  that  has  given  grounds  for 
doubting  his  story,  it  must  be  his  claim  for  remarkable  speed 
over  the  Polar  Sea.  He  claims  to  have  left  Svartevo^  on  IM^urcfa 
18  and  to  have  reached  the  Pole,  520  miles  distant,  on  April 
il,  (84  days  at  15.29  nautical  miles  a  day).  This  speed  is 
unprecedented  over  moving  polar  ice  floes.  It  is  perhaps  100 
per  cent  in  excess  of  anything  ever  claimed  by  previous  polar 
explorers.  Was  it  possible  for  Cook  to  surpass  his  predecessors? 
Of  course,  some  one  must  exceed,  but  is  100  per  cent  excess 
reasonable?  Is  there  a  substantial  basis  upon  which  to  claim 
such  an  excess?  The  answer  to  these  questions  must  be  de- 
termined individually,  by  those  who  weigh  the  evidence. 

It  was  Cook's  idea,  as  I  interpret  it,  that  north  of  Axel 
Heiberg  Land  near  the  100th  meridian  west,  there  must  be  a 
parting  of  the  Arctic  ciurents.  It  is  known  that  north  of  Grant 
Land,  the  cturent  is  to  the  east.  The  greater  parf  of  this 
easterly  current,  passes  on  east  beyond  Grant  Land,  and  con- 
tinues east  along  the  north  coast  of  Greenland  to  its  northern 
extremity  where  it  tunts  south,  and  down  the  east  shore  of 

*In  the  appendix  of  his  book,  My  Attainment  of  the  Pole,  Cook  presenti  • 
list  of  scientists  who  support  him. 


Cook'a  Story  Examined 


877 


m- 


\m 


Greenland  into  the  Atlantic.    A  small  part,  however,  of  this 
easterly  moving  water  passes  south  through  Eobeson  Channel, 
Kane  Basm,  Smith's  Sound,  Baffin's  Bay  and  thence  to  the 
Atlantic.    It  may  not  be  equaUy  as  well  known  perhaps  that 
southwest  of  Grant  Land  and  west  of  Heiberg  Land  the  current 
is  also  to  the  south,  passing  out  through  Jones  and  Lancaster 
Sounds  and  Hudson  Strait,  joining  the  last  mentioned  southerly 
current  in  Baffin's  Bay  on  its  way  to  the  Atlantic.  In  other  words, 
there  are  southerly  currents  down  both  the  east  and  west  sides  of 
EUesmere  Land,both  of  which  currents  merge  in  Baffin's  Bay  and 
continue  as  one  to  the  Atlantic.    Consequently,  there  must  be 
somewhere  in  the  Arctic  Sea,  north  or  west  of  Heiberg  Land,  a 
body  of  comparatively  still  water  where  it  parts  to  form  these 
two  currents.*    It,  therefore,  seems  to  be  a  reasonable  con- 
jecture, based  on  scientific  principles,  that  the  ice  in  the  vicinity 
of  that  line  of  parting,  must  be  comparatively  quiet,  and  free  of 
high  pressure  ridges.    If  it  is  so,  and  the  ice  is  level  and  smooth 
enough,  15.29  miles  per  day  is  not  an  unreasonable  rate,  because 
on  smooth  level  surfaces  such  speed  has  been  made.    The 
question  in  Cook's  case  seems  to  be :  Did  he  actually  locate  and 
visit  approximately  the  line  of  the  parting  of  these  waters  in  the 
Arctic  Ocean,  and  find  there  the  above  described  conditions? 
Is  this  parting  of  the  currents  in  the  vicinity  of  the  96th  or  the 
100th  meridian  west? 

Cook  writest  from  Annoatok  before  starting :  "I  aimed  to 
reach  the  top  of  the  globe  in  the  angle  between  Alaska  and 
Greenland,  a  promising  route  through  a  new  and  lonesome  region 
which  had  not  been  tried,  abandoning  what  has  come  to  be 
called  the  American  Route.  If  my  infonnation  was  well 
founded  and  my  general  conjectures  correct,  I  shouW  have 
advantages  which  had  not  been  possessed  by  any  othar  leader 
of  a  polar  expedition.  The  new  route  seemed  to  promise,  also, 
immunity  from  the  highly  disturbing  effects  of  certain  North 

•Nanaen  in  the  From.  Debng  in  the  JmuuiU  tented  cuwent  theories  ranilar 
tothewofCook.    AmundMn puipowe in  1»17  to teet » nnukr cunent  theoiy. 

^MpAttmimtnttftluPoh,vm§emn«i. 


^L  K 


S78 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Greenland  currenis.    In  all,  the  chances  seemed  not  unfavor* 
able." 

He  based  his  theory  apparently  on  what  he  believed  to  be 
the  operation  of  natural  la  ^s.  He  traveled  west  from  Annoatok 
across  EUesmere  Land  a  distance  of  400  miles,  or  as  far  as  from 
land  to  the  Pole,  in  order  to  get  to  the  proper  meridian,  to  test 
his  theory. 

Cook  claims  an  average  daily  speed  on  the  outward  journey 
of  15.3  miles,  practically  equalUng  Amundsen's,  Shackleton's 
and  Scott's  speed  on  land.  Assume  that  Cook  foimd  equally 
smooth  traveling  surface  on  the  ic,  as  did  Amundsen  on  land. 
The  latter  used  dogs  and  lightened  his  loads  into  depots,  as  he 
advanced  south,  to  be  picked  up  on  the  return.  Cook  could 
not  do  this.  His  claim,  therefore,  would  seem  to  be,  taking  this 
view  of  it,  that  he  did  better  over  the  polar  ice  floes,  than  did 
Amundsen  over  the  smooth  barrier,  the  glacier,  and  over  the 
smooth  plateau  beyond.  But  Cook  had  the  advantage  of  a 
smaller  party,  consisting  of  experienced  Eskimos  in  their 
native  element,  and  he  undoubtedly  had  better  dogs.  There  is 
nothing  in  this  claim  of  Cook's  for  speed  that  can  be  admitted 
or  declared  imreasonable  until  more  facts  are  available.  Can 
we  believe  him  under  the  circumstances?  Do  we  believe  others 
under  similar  circumstances?  Would  we  have  been  likdy  to 
believe  Cook  had  not  Peary,  a  prejudiced  witness,  discredited 
him?* 

*Since  this  Chapter  was  written  Donald  MacMiOan  has  returned  from  a 
trip  in  search  of  the  mythical "  Crodcer  Land. "  He  kit  Svartevoeg  on  Heibog 
Luid  on  April  16,  1914,  and  traveled  almost  due  northwest  150  miles,  or  to 
Latitude  88°  30'  Longitude  108°  6t'.  An  abridged  narrative  of  the  journey  is 
published  by  him  in  Harper' t  Magmtu  for  October  and  November.  1915.  I 
have  not  seen  a  full  narrative. 

TluB  abridged  account  is  in  some  respects  remarkably  significant.  It 
discredits  Peary  as  to  his  discovery  of  Crocker  Land,  but  it  sustains  all  of  Cook's 
claims  as  far  as  his  narrative  and  MacMillan's  treat  the  same  subjects. 

MacMillan  is  inimical  to  Cook  and  studiously  avoids  mentioning  his  name, 
but  apparently  goes  out  of  his  wa^  to  bring  in  irrelevant  matters  relating  to 
Peary.    It  is  proper  to  maitiuB  this  fact  in  the  circumstances. 

Cook  after  Sverdrup  is  the  only  person  who  had  previously  been  over  the 
same  continuous  land  route,  and  the  only  person  who  had  been  ova  the  sail 
portion  of  the  polar  sea.  CoiOinutd  onntst  pag$. 


am 


Cook's  Story  Examined 


379 


Cook  writes  brilliantly,  and  his  narrative  is  a  very  human 
document.  His  descriptions  in  many  ways  are  unsurpassed  in 
distinctness,  but  although  he  is  a  scientist  of  repute,  he  does 
not  tell  very  much  of  a  scientific  nature  that  can  be  checked  to 
test  the  truth  of  his  story.  He  gives  his  latitude  often,  perhaps 
as  often  as  he  could  get  the  sun,  and  from  these  anyone  can 
ascertain  his  alleged  distances  and  positions.  He  also  publishes 
a  dead  reckoning  table,  in  appendix,  giving  all  his  marches. 
But  when  he  attempts,  as  he  does  infrequently,  to  mention 
distances  in  the  body  of  the  narrative,  they  do  not  in  some 
instances  agree  with  the  differences  in  latitude  as  shown  by  his 
observations,  or  even  with  his  dead  reckoning.  Under  these 
circumstances,  one  loses  coaridence  in  his  thoroughness.  For 
instance,  he  says  that  observations  on  April  8  placed  his  camp 
at  latitude  86°  36'  Longitude  94"  2'.  He  writes  (Page  257*) 
"Although  we  made  long  marches  and  really  great  speed,  we 
advanced  only  ninety-six  miles  in  the  nine  days.  Much  of 
our  hard  work  had  been  lost  in  twists  around  troublesome 
pressure  lines  and  high,  irregular  fields  of  very  old  ice. " 

This  is  clear  enough.  He  means  the  distance  of  northing 
made  in  the  9  days  previous  to  April  8  or  from  March  SO  to 
April  8.     But  he  gives  the  latitude  on  March  30  as  84"  49'  56" 

MacMillan  calls  Svartevoeg  (which  was  discovered  and  named  by  Svprdnip) 
Cape  Thomas  Hubbard;  a  name  given  it  later  by  Peary. 

MacMillan  nevertheless  unconsciously  flatters  Cook. 

First:  He  selected  Cook's  Eskimo  companion  Itookashoo  as  his  leading 
Kuide. 

Second:  After  crossmg  Smith's  Sound,  MacMillan  followed  Cook's  route 
across  Ellesmere  Land  west  to  the  northern  pointof  Heiberg  Land  to  Svartevoeg. 

Third:  He  chose  that  point  as  did  Cook,  for  his  departure  from  land. 

Fourth:  One-half  of  MacMillan's  route  on  the  polar  ice  was  over  a  space 
previously  traversed  by  Cook  and  was  never  traversed  by  anyone  else. 

Fifth :  MacMillan's  description  of  the  ice  conditions  and  currents  is  identical 
with  Cook's  description.  As  much  so  as  are  Peary's  descriptions  of  ice  con- 
ditions at  the  Nortn  Pole,  which  have  been  commented  upon  so  much. 

Sixth:  MacMillan  dropped  a  line  and  sinker  into  the  sea  at  the  far  end  of 
his  journey  and  it  hung  perpendicularly  indicating  still  water. 

Seventh:  He  traveled  on  his  outward  journey  faster  than  Cook  traveled. 
He  made  80  miles  on  his  5th  outward  march.  Cook  s  greatest  day's  march 
in  his  whole  journey  out  and  back  was  29  miles.  MacMillan  claims  to  have 
traveled  on  his  return  trip,  50  miles  in  one  march,  and  37)^  miles  on  the  average 
for  the  4  days  returning.    Here  is  his  mileage  record  out  and  back. 

*My  Attainmtnl^HuVoU. 


880 


Hob  ihe  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


(say  840  5(K)  and  the  latitude  on  April  8  as  86°  S8'.  The 
difference  is  106  miles;  not  96.  Three  days  later  he  makes 
another  statemoit  and  a  similar  error.  On  April  11  he  gives 
the  latitude  as  being  87°  20'.  This  would  make  the  distance 
traveled  in  those  3  days  from  the  8th  to  the  11th,  44  miles,  but 
he  said  in  an  installment  of  his  first  publication  (which  he  omits 
in  his  book)  "in  these  S  days  we  made  50  miles."  In  another 
instance,  he  writes  of  reaching  this  same  camp  (April  11) 
"after  traveling  SOO  milee  from  land,"  when  the  difference  in 
latitude  by  his  observations,  makes  the  distance  S60  miles. 
On  page  254*  Cook  writes:  "On  the  5th  and  6th  (April) 
we  waited  until  noon  before  starting  to  get  observations.  This 
late  start  brought  our  stopping  time  close  to  midnight,  and 
infused  an  interest  in  the  midnight  sun."  But  in  his  alleged 
field  papers  on  page  571  under  April  5,  he  writes  that  he  started 
at  9  a.  m.  instead  of  noon,  and  marched  imtil  5 :45  p.  m.,  an 

OUTWARD  JOURNEY 


Says  he  made  S^  miles  per  hour  so  far. 
Crossed  9  newly  frozen  leads  estimated 

72  miles  out 
100  miles  from  shore 

81°  ««'— 103°  38'  (By  observation) 

17«°Var.W.Ut.82°30'      Long.  108° 
22' 


April  le 

Ist  March 

14  miles 

April  17 

2nd  March 

3 

i< 

April  18 

3d    March 

18 

t< 

April  19 

4th  March 

17 

(« 

52 

AprUiO 

5th  March 

30 

** 

82 

April  21 

6th  March 

18 

(• 

100 

April  22 

7th  March 

I 

44 

44 

April  23 

8th  March  J 

April  24 

9th  March 

6 

<« 

6 

f.'t 


¥i 


April  25 
April  26 
April  27 
April  28 


9(  150 


150 


16.6  miles  per  day 

RETURN  JOURNEY 


1st 

March 

50  miles 

Reached  7th  igloo 

2nd 

March 

48  miles 

Reached  5th  igloo 
Reached  3d  igloo 

3d 

March 

35  miles 

4th 

March 

17  miles 

Reached  Land 

4(  150  miles 


37.5  miles  per  day 
*iry  Attainment  qf  the  Pole. 


Cook'a  Story  Examined 


381 


on  the  6th  that  he  started  at  8:10  a.  m.,  and  marched  untfl 
6:15  p.  m.,  which  would  indicate  that  he  was  sleeping  on  both 
nights,  instead  of  watching  the  midnight  smi.  On  page  862 
he  writes  "I  must  steadily  keep  up  my  notes  and  the  records  of 
observalions  was  serious  add'tion  to  my  daily  task.  I  never 
permitted  myself  to  be  careless  in  regard  to  this,  for  I  never 
let  myself  forget  the  imix>rta''  -e  of  such  data  in  plotting  an 
accurate  course. " 

Thus  is  briefly  enumerated  a  list  of  apparent  contradictions, 
indicating  something.  Is  it  fiction  writing,  or  are  these  erroi-s 
of  such  a  nature  that  they  may  possibly  occur  in  preparing  a 
record  of  actual  events?  No  one  except  Cook  himself  can 
have  much  interest  in  his  mistakes.     Everyone  is  Uable  to  mis- 

If  these  claims  for  speed,  which  eclipse  all  records  on  polar  ice  floes,  or  on 
the  South  Pole  journeys,  are  accepted,  (they  would  not  have  been  accepted  if 
Cook  had  claimed  them)  they  eliminate  all  doubts  as  to  Cook's  veracity  as  to 
speed  in  that  vicinity.  Because  the  greatest  day's  travel  made  by  Cook  on 
his  whole  journey  on  the  alleged  trip  to  the  pole  and  back  was  only  €9  miUt; 
and  this  was  the  first  day  out  after  leaving  his  support'ng  party,  when  he  and 
his  dogs  were  fresh  and  when  he  was  traveling  over  the  same  space  that  Mac- 
Miilan  traveled. 

This  evidence  is  significant  and  valuabl  ^Timg  as  it  does  from  one  who 
noticeably  ignores  Cook,  but  who  imintentioi^.liy  flatters  him  by  selecting  the 
same  companion,  and  adopting  his  route  and  verifying  all  of  his  claims  and 
statements  as  far  as  the  two  narratives  are  comparable. 

Ekblow,  the  geologist  of  the  expedition,  (who  remained  on  the  land)  by 
a  peculiar  combination  of  circumstances  was  enabled  to  send  by  a  vessel  the 
first  report  of  the  safe  return  of  the  expedition  to  Und.  It  was  several  months 
thereafter  before  MacMillan  could  transmit  his  report,  which  I  have  quoted. 

Ekbiow  wrote,  in  addition  to  what  MacMillan  reports: 

"On  the  day  they  returned  to  knd  in  the  middle  of  May,  the  ice  on  the 
Polar  Sea  broke  up  and  became  a  hideous  grinding  chaos  of  broken  ice,  on 
which  they  would  certainly  have  perished  had  they  not  got  back  as  they  did." 

This  meagre  report  as  far  as  it  goes  fully  sustains  Cook's  allegations  as  to 
the  moving  ice  conditions  on  the  pdar  sea  west  of  Grant  Land  in  tariff  June; 
which  conditions  prevented  him  from  reaching  land  on  his  return  from  the 
alleged  trip  to  the  Pole,  and  compelled  him  to  continue  with  the  ire  on  south 
via  Sparbo.  MacMillan  and  Cook  are  the  only  persons  who  have  ever  traversed 
that  portion  of  the  Polar  Sea.     Cook's  description  was  the  first  ever  made. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  had  MacMillan  been  one  day  later  in  getting 
off  the  ice  he  would  have  been  in  the  identical  predicament  that  Cook  says  he 
was  in  nearly  three  months  later  in  the  year.  MacMillan  probably  would  have 
been  compelled  to  have  gpne  on  South  to  Hinges  Land  and  perhaps  have  been 
obliged  to  have  spent  a  winter  somewhere  in  t^  vicinity  of  Jones's  Sound  as  did 
Cook. 

It  appears  remaricable  that  every  circumstance  that  can  be  brought  to 
bear  on  the  case  appears  to  sustain  Cook's  allegations  as  fast  as  they  arise,  and 
everyone  of  them  uniformly  condemns  Peuy. 


I 


88« 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


takes.  The  only  question  of  interest  is:  What,  if  anything, 
do  these  mistakes  indicate? 

In  the  appendix  in  Cook's  book  he  publishes  what  purports 
to  be  a  diary  or  log.*  This  gives  the  daily  marches,  the  ob- 
servations, etc.  Diagram  No.  15  presents  this  diary  in  graphic 
form.  Column  A  in  the  diagram  shows  the  various  camps 
that  were  located  by  observations;  the  distances  between  those 
camps;  which  distances  total  520  miles  (the  correct  distance) 
from  Svartevoeg  to  the  Pole.  Column  B  shows  the  daily  camps 
and  marches  by  dead  reckoning  and  indicates  a  gain  of  21  miles, 
making  the  total  distance  541  miles,  instead  of  the  true  distance, 
520  miles.  Column  C  gives  the  positions  as  variously  reported 
in  the  pages  of  his  book.  The  cross  lines  connecting  the  columns 
indicate  where  these  discrepancies  occur.  We  may  now  check 
up  on  Diagram  No.  15  the  aforesaid  discrepancies  in  the  order 
enumerated. 

First:  (Page  257)  "We  advanced  only  96  miles  in  the  0 
days."  (March  30  to  April  8).  The  observations,  Colunm  A 
show  the  correct  distance,  106  miles.  The  notation  in  the  diary 
(page  572,  April  9)  is  also  correct,  106  miles.  The  dead  reckon- 
ing, however,  shows  116  miles.  A  discrepancy  of  10  miles 
between  the  methods.  But  the  numeral  96  which  he  uses  on 
page  257  in  his  book  does  not  appear  in  either  the  colunm  of 
observations  or  the  column  cf  dead  reckoning.  How  could  he, 
with  these  figures,  106  or  116,  before  him,  write  the  paragraph 
quoted,  ind  what  could  possibly  have  been  his  object?  Did 
he  want  to  make  his  distance  appear  shorter  than  it  really  was? 
It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that.  And  no  plausible  motive 
can  be  seen  for  this  error.  But  a  plausible  excuse  may  be 
invented.  Possibly  he  made  a  clerical  mistake  in  deducting 
the  10  mile  discrepancy  from  the  106  miles,  instead  of  deducting 
it  from  the  116  miles,  or  possibly  it  was  a  mistake  in  subtraction. 

Take  the  next:  "In  3  days  we  made  50  miles."  (April 
8  to  11).  The  dead  reckoning  shows  39,  the  observations  44. 
Why  did  he  write  50  with  these  figures  before  him?  Such  an 
*Mt/  Attainment  qf  the  Pole. 


Coolest  Story  Examined 


S88 


error  can  only  be  excused  on  the  theory  that  he  mtended  the 
50  miles  to  be  approximate,  or  round  numbers.  But  he  omits 
this  remark  about  the  50  miles  from  his  book.  It  appeared  only 
in  his  first  publications.  If  he  had  any  ulterior  object  in  first 
publishing  it,  or  if  he  had  any  purpose  to  deceive,  it  is  difficult 
to  detect  it  unless  the  whole  story  is  fiction. 

Take  the  last  enumeration,  84  days,  800  miles  (March  18 
to  April  11)  (or  from  Svartevoeg.  81'  20'  to  87»  20').  On  page 
263  he  writes  "We  had  dragged  ourselves  three  hundred  tnilee  in 
twenty-four  days.  Including  deUys  and  detours,  this  gave  an 
average  of  nearly  18  miles  daily  on  an  air  line  in  our  course. 
There  remained  an  unk  >wn  line  of  one  hundred  and  sixty 
miles  to  the  Pole." 

The  only  correct  figures  in  the  quotation  are  the  "  160  miles 
to  the  Pole"  and  the  "24  days. "  Why  did  he  say  800  instead 
of  860  the  true  distance?  Did  he  want  to  deceive  by  making 
his  progress  less  by  60  miles  than  it  really  was?  If  he  took  an 
observation  as  he  aUeges  he  did,  and  was  at  87»  20',  he  knew 
it  was  860  to  land  and  160  to  the  Pole,  why  did  he  say  800  to 
land?  If  no  plausible  motive  can  be  cited,  possibly  an  excuse 
may  be  found  for  this.    The  explanation  of  the  error  may  be 

as  follows. 

On  April  11  after  he  had  made  an  observation  and  had 
ascertained  his  latitude  to  be  87"  20*  he  then  summariaw  the 
results  so  far  on  the  journey  and  the  prospects  or  possibilities 
ahead.  He  had  started  from  Und  at  81»  20*  which  shows  that 
he  was  then  860  miles  from  his  stertmg  pomt,  and  160  miles 
from  the  Pole.  The  800  is  obviously  a  clerical  error,  either  on 
the  part  of  the  printer,  or  Cook  himself.  Whoever  made  it, 
makes  no  difference.  A  fact  cannot  be  changed,  and  changing 
these  figures  from  800  to  860,  the  proper  number,  would  neoM- 
sarily  change  the  average  also,  from  18  to  15  miles  per  day,  which 
again  is  immaterial  in  this  argument. 

One  can  imagine  how  two  such  mistakes  could  happen,  if 
the  numerals  were  originally  entered  in  figures,  not  written 
words.    A  6  is  often  made  to  look  like  an  0,  and  likewise  a  6 


warn 


384 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Ducovered 


to  look  like  a  3.  But  it  is  clearly  evident,  that  a  man  standing 
at  any  point  between  two  extremes  520  miles  apart,  could  not 
possibly  have  160  miles  on  one  side,  and  only  800  on  the  other. 
It  must  be  860. 

Peaiy  wrote  in  Hampton'a  that  he  traveled  40  miles  between 
Camp  26  and  27.  He  changed  this  m  his  book  The  North  Pah 
to  80  miles:  but  neither  number  corresponds  with  the  true 
distance  as  shown  by  his  aUeged  observations  at  both  camps, 
which  makes  the  distance  82  miles.  This  error  wouW  have 
been  passed  in  this  analysis  as  inunaterial,  but  it  was  reviewed, 
because  it  is  collateral  and  corroborative  evidence  to  show  that 
Henson  was  truthful  in  saying  that  no  observations  were  taken 
and  that  Peaiy  is  m  error  m  stating  that  he  did  take  them,  at 
both  camps. 

In  hke  manner  at  Camps  11  and  12,  Peaiy  erred  as  to  the 
camp  from  which  Borup  turned  back.  The  error  itself  is  un- 
important, but  becomes  valuable  in  corroborating  Borup,  and 
m  sustaining  the  theoiy,  that  the  quinary  districts  program  is 
fictitious.  For  similar  reasons  it  is  of  comparatively  little  con- 
sequence as  a  matter  of  fact  in  what  manner  the  error  on  the 
part  of  Cook  occurred,  as  to  this  distance  of  300  miles  and  the 
average  of  13  miles.  But  with  relation  to  an  attempt  by  a 
distinguished  astronomer  to  show  Cook  to  be  in  the  wrong 
which  wiU  appear  later,*  it  is  of  prime  importance  in  provfaJ 
that  the  writer  himsel  is  not  only  wrong,  but  is  evidently 
disregarding  facts. 

On  page  254t  Cook  writes  "On  the  5th  and  6th  of  April  we 
waited  until  noon  before  starting  to  get  observations.  This 
late  start  brought  our  stopping  tune  close  to  midnight,  and 
mfused  an  interest  in  the  midnight  sun. "  He  says  on  another 
page  that  he  did  not  see  the  midnight  sun  until  later  or  untU 
April  7.  And  on  that  date  (April  7)  and  on  April  8,  his  log 
mdicates  that  he  did  make  the  late  starts,  but  he  has  the  dates 

•See  Chapter  IV. 

tAfy  Attainment  of  the  Pole. 


»■»  i^.**.— „-r.  «p 


/i 


I 


>^ 


I 


HP^i 


EB 


BEBB 


fsm 


i  !•   ^   ^'1 


^^ 


I    I,   I  zi: 


raTit 
^    '5    >s    >^    J?  ?^  f'     > 


n    U3^  U 


mm 


>l^liUSft    !i»    5^     5s     ?^     IE.      U. 


¥? 


^ 

? 


t      B 


?    t- 


t  (  I    It 


1 


iZ 


^/f0O9£ 


MfAV: ' 


i    i 


I; 


^^ 


'^/    '-  PI   --0> 


r^/'jtik}/ 


rf^  y- 

ym^rf  ^ 

u 

'--'^wrf 

^"■v^-- 
m^--' 

^^^^^Hk  i^K^ 

^^^^^HIh 

i     ?     !•    ft     •     »     s     «     »     «     s 


?^ 


t.'g  jgj-  -^ 


tS^fd 


•ximimmmpmmmp^p 


•ij 


1^  lU 

.1^  1 1 J 

;  ^     .V  ^-   > 


CooVa  Story  Examined 


385 


wrong  on  page  254.  There  is  room  for  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  meaning  of  all  this. 

Cook  evidently  delights  in  describing  scenery,  colors,  his 
feelings,  and  his  thoughts,  but  anyone  who  attempts  to  check 
up  his  scientific  or  mathematical  entries,  in  order  to  present  the 
true  facts  would  be  unsafe  in  relying  upon  his  remark  "I  never 
permitted  myself  to  be  careless  in  regard  to  this  for  I  never  let 
myself  forget  the  importance  of  such  data  in  plotting  an  accurate 
route. " 

The  North  Pole  pictures  in  Cook's  book.  My  AUainmeni 
of  the  Pole,  are  disappointing  as  to  clearness.  They  are  very 
indistinct  and  shadowless,  as  bad  in  that  respect  as  most  ai 
Peary's  North  Pole  pictures.  Cook  and  Peary  have  both  sud 
that  the  actinic  light  in  that  high  latitude  is  not  good.  Perhaps 
not.  Amundsen's  pictures  at  the  South  Pole  are  not  very  clear. 
Peary  shows  one  picture,  however,  alleged  to  have  been  taken 
at  the  North  Pole  entitled  Looking  toward  Chdyuski  that  is 
very  clear;  and  Cook  shows  one  picture  in  his  My  Attainment 
of  the  Pole  opposite  page  269  entitled  Mending  near  the  P(Ae 
that  is  very  distmct.  Scott's  pictures  at  the  South  Pole,  differ- 
ing from  Amimdsen's,  are  also  ezceedin^y  clear  and  distinct. 
These  illustrations  indicate  that  the  actinic  light  was  sometimes 
satisfactory  at  both  Poles,  if  both  Poles  were  visited.  Aside 
from  indistinctness.  Cook's  pictures  at  the  Pole  appear  to  be 
genuine  photographs.  The  sag  of  the  flag,  the  bend  of  the  pole, 
the  attitude  of  the  tnen  correspond  to  the  narrative,  and  appear 
natural,  differing  m  that  respect  from  Peary's  N<H*th  Pole 
pictures,  which  are  obviously  patched  up  affairs,  with  breezes 
and  calms  made  to  order. 

The  pictiue  in  Cook's  My  AiUtinmeni  of  the  Pole  opposite 
page  269  entitled  Mending  near  the  Pole,  displays  shadows  that 
are  significant.  The  pictiu«,  therefiwe,  is  herewith  r^roduced 
on  the  next  page,  386.  Cook  strangely  enough  does  not  alhide 
to  this  picture  in  his  narrative.  But  the  lines  are  very  clear 
and  the  shadows  very  distinct.  Anyone  can  measure  the  angles. 
Cook  chums  to  have  been  at  the  Nmrth  Pole  an  April  21, 1908. 


886 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


11 


ill. 


If  he  was  there  at  that  time,  the  shadows  would  have  been 
about  12  degree  shadows.  Those  in  this  picture  appear  to  be 
approximately  18  degree  shadows.  If  the  latitude  where  the 
picture  was  taken  had  been  given,  and  that  ktitude  was  near 
the  Pole,  it  would  under  the  circumstances  be  the  best  evidence 
yet  produced,  that  Cook  was  at  the  Pole. 

This  picture  is  of  special  value  and  is  strong  coUateral 
evidence  in  his  favor,  because  he  makes  no  mention  of  it  in  his 
writings.  It  is,  of  course,  no  actual  proof,  as  the  picture  could 
have  been  taken  anywhere  in  the  morning  or  evoiing  when  the 
sun  was  12  degrees  high.  But  the  fact  that  he  does  not  allude 
to  it,  and  does  not  fix  its  exact  location,  and  that  the  shadows 
seem  to  be  what  they  should  be  if  the  picture  was  taken  near 
the  Pole,  must  be  considered  coincidences  of  prime  importance 
in  ascertaining  the  truth.  The  writer's  judgment  is,  that  it  is 
the  most  convincmg  piece  of  collateral  evidence,  as  ^o  the 
validity  of  polar  claims,  that  is  to  be  found  between  the  covrs  of 
the  two  explorers'  narratives. 

In  all  of  Cook's  writings  previous  to  the  publication  of 
My  AttainmerU  of  the  Pole  he  makes  no  mention  of  shadows,  but 
is  profuse  with  them  in  the  book,  a  fact  which  is  some  indicatifui 
of  being  an  afterthought.  In  his  book  he  says  that  on  the 
j"umqr  north,  when  he  took  observations,  he  sometimes  erected 
a  tent  pole  in  the  snow,  and  measured  the  shadows  cast  by  the 
pole.  That  when  he  reached  the  North  Pok»  he  erected  this 
tent  pole  again,  and  that  he  had  shadows  measured  every  hour 
for  twer  >-.four  hours,  mdicating  that  the  results  are  to  some 
exte'  borating  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  his  observa- 

tions    •      ;gardless  of  observations  they  mdicate  that  he  was 


He  makes  excellent  diagrams  of  shadow  lines  as 


at  thi  ^ 

ihey  would  appear  to  one  in  i^proaching,  and  on  arrival  at  the 
Pole.  These  diagrams  are  very  mteresting  and  instructive,  but 
I  do  not  consider  them  of  any  value  as  corroborative  evidence. 
He  shows  the  object  as  casting  its  shadow  from  the  centre  of  the 
sun  and  he  says  he  measured  the  length  of  shadows  (on  crystal 


&    *^' 

w  '. 

"  8 
oa 

5-' 

^  u 

?  A 

Q  ~ 
S  CI 


s 


■  -W^,'- 


p. 


CooVb  Story  Examined 


887 


covered  ice)  that  were  over  27  feet  long,  to  an  exactness  of  six 
inches. 

The  shadow  of  an  object  is  dim  at  its  farther  end,  because 
the  lower  limb  of  the  sun  hides  behind  the  object  and  the  dis- 
appearing upper  limb  shines  over  a  space  from  the  outer  edge 
of  the  shadow.  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  one  could 
measure  the  length  of  a  S7  or  28  foot  shadow  on  an  uneven 
surface  to  within  6  inches  of  its  true  length  even  if  the  object 
itself  were  perfectly  aplumb  and  its  foot  perfectly  horizontal 
with  the  end  of  the  shadow.  How  he  could  have  found  24 
separate  divisions  of  a  circle  all  to  measure  a  uniform  length 
from  a  common  centre,  as  he  intimates  he  did  have  them  for 
every  hour  for  24  hours  at  the  Pole,  on  the  presumably  uneven 
surface  of  the  moving  polar  ice  floe,  is  somewhat  difficult  to 
understand. 

The  only  reason  I  can  see  for  such  an  appar«itly  foolish 
procedure,  particularly  on  the  journey  north,  is  the  theoiy  that 
he  was  over-painstaking  in  locating  his  positions  accurately 
from  time  to  time,  as  he  proceeded  northward.  But  how  can 
this  theoiy  be  reconciled  with  a  mind  that  demands  such 
accuracy  in  the  matter  of  an  altitude  of  the  sim  taken  for  in- 
stance so  far  away  from  his  goal  as  84<*  50^,  (on  March  20)  and 
again  at  86"  50',  on  April  8,  and  then  is  so  inaccurate  in  entering 
the  result  of  this  e£Fort  in  his  diary,  as  to  make  the  distance 
between  the  two  points  show  an  error  of  10  mile*  (06  instead  of 
106)?  And  then  S  days  later,  (on  April  11)  after  another 
observati<m,  make  a  similar  ertor  of  60  miUt  in  computing  his 
distance  from  land,  calling  it  SOO  miles  when  his  accurate  ob- 
wrvations  before  him  showed  that  he  was  then  860  miles  out? 
And  then  to  overlook  this  errcff  of  60  miles  a  second  time  when 
striking  an  average,  by  saying  it  was  neariy  18  miles  in  24  days 
when  the  correct  average  for  860  miles  would  have  been  15 
miles? 

It  requires  some  strain  on  rate's  credulity  to  lecondle  these 
conflicting  operations.  It  would  be  easier,  I  think,  for  many  of 
Cook's  friends  to  imagine  that  having  been  so  shamefully  treated 


m 


■J  ;i 


S88 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discotered 


n 


•m 


by  the  Peaiy  conspirators  in  their  dastardly  misrepresentations 
and  realizing  how  readily  their  falsehoods  were  circukted  by  a 
subsidiTCd  press,  and  with  equal  readiness  accepted  by  a  fickle 
popiJace,  that  in  desperation  over  such  conditions  Cook  con- 
eluded,  that  the  end  justifies  the  means;  that  the  devil  should 
be  fought  with  fire;  and  as  an  afterthought,  he  has  invented 
these  shadow  ghosts.  At  any  rate  it  would  be  inconceivable 
tbat  a  ship  master  even  though  among  coral  reefs,  rocks  or 
shoals,  would  resort  to  shadows  to  verify  his  sextant. 

It  would  be  necessary  under  the  circumstances  to  be  of 
value  to  plumb  the  pole  m  the  cold  wind  and  snow,  and  measure 
Its  shadow  on  the  uneven  surface  of  the  ice  pack,  which  when 
done,  and  the  angle  worked  out.  would  only  imperfectly  indicate 
the  altitude  of  the  sun.     Had  Cook  lost  his  sextant  this  method 
of  measuring  shadows  would  have  been  an  ingenious  substitute. 
But  havmg  a  sextant  and  using  it,  it  seems  unUkely  that  he 
would  consider  it  advisable  to  measure  shadows.    It  wouW 
have  been  much  more  interesting,  and  convincing,  had  he 
referred  to  the  length  of  shadows  as  a  noticeable  coincidence 
with  the  North  Pole  location.    It  is  true  that  he  mentions  this 
view  of  It  and  has  anticipated  all  of  the  above  criticisms.    This 
surplusage,  if  it  may  be  so  caUed,  or  this  exaggeration,  is  no 
evidence,  however,  that  he  was  not  at  the  Pole. 

Cook's  sledge  shown  on  page  269  is  a  skiUful  piece  of  work- 
manship.  hgbt  and  strong.  The  sledges  used  by  Nansen.  Scott, 
bhackleton  and  Amundsen  were  of  very  similar  construction. 
Amundsen's  sledges  were  as  good  when  they  returned  from  the 
bouth  Pole  as  the  day  they  started  south,  needing  no  repairs 
on  the  journey. 

There  are  no  noticeable  mcongruities  in  Cook's  alleged 
observations  near  the  Pole.  He  is,  therefore,  not  placed  m  such 
an  absurd  position  as  is  Peary.  Nevertheless,  his  observations 
prove  nothmg  as  to  his  being  at  the  Pole.  Neither  do  they 
contain  anythmg  of  a  suspicious  nature,  and  nothmg  that  is 
es^iaUy  subject  to  criticism  or  review.  No  one,  excepting 
Prof.  StockweU  of  the  Cleveland  University,  has  pointed  out 


Cook's  Story  Examined 


S80 


wherein  Cook's  alleged  observations  either  at  the  Pole  or  on  C*; 
journey  convict  him  of  error.  Stockwell's  two  articles  will  be 
examined  and  reviewed  in  another  chapter. 

Cook  makes  no  mention  of  ascertaining  the  variation  of  his 
compass  at  any  point  on  the  journey  which  would  seem  to  have 
been  a  matter  of  as  much  importance  to  him  in  many  ways,  as 
was  the  altitude  of  the  sim. 

His  alleged  route  indicates  that  he  traveled  north  over  the 
Polar  Sea  practically  on  the  96th  meridian  west,  which  meridian 
is  approximately  the  north  magnetic  meridian.  It  is,  therefore, 
quite  possible  that  the  compass  variation  on  that  meridian  is 
constant,  at  about  180  d^rees,  and  that  the  needle  pointed 
south  instead  of  north,  all  the  way  to  the  Pole.  But  it  is  also 
quite  possible  that  it  did  not  do  so,  at  any  camp  on  the  joum^. 
And  even  if  it  did  point  south  at  any  one  camp,  it  may  not  have 
pointed  south  at  any  other,  even  though  all  the  camps  were  on 
the  96th  meridian. 

At  all  events  it  would  seeui  to  have  been  important  for  him 
to  know  what  the  variation  was,  at  every  camp  where  he  took 
an  observation.  Moreover  as  he  was  traveling  over  virgin 
space,  the  knowledge  of  the  variation  of  the  compass  over  that 
space,  would  have  been  a  new  and  valuable  contribution  to 
science,  which  would  have  been  -velcomed  by  mariUme  cartog- 
raphers. Perhaps  he  ascertained  this  variation  at  frequent 
intervals,  but  if  he  did,  it  seems  strange  that  he  failed  to  make 
note  of  it,  especially  as  he  takes  such  pains  to  record  the  alleged 
fact  that  he  suffered  the  useless  inconvenience,  and  practiced 
the  obvious  tomfoolery  of  measuring  shadows. 

I  cannot  present  this  subject  of  the  variation  of  iiis  compass 
as  a  charge  against  Cook,  as  I  was  compelled  to  do  in  the  case  of 
Peary,  because  the  ground  on  which  to  base  it  in  Cook's  case,  is 
not  so  solid.  Peary  testified  in  Washington  that  he  made  no 
observations  to  ascertain  the  variation  of  his  compass  and  none 
to  ascertain  his  longitude  on  the  joum^  north,  which  are 
positive  assertions  presenting  a  clear  case.  But  Cook  saya 
that  he  took  an  azimuth  compass  with  him  and  says  that  he 


a  'R 


,1 


>i&.«.i. 


390 


^a«  f/ie  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


made  very  frequent  observations  and  he  gives  both  his  latitude 
and  longitude  at  many  camps.  Hence,  it  would  seem  that  he 
must  have  known  or  could  have  known  at  any  camp,  at  local 
noon,  when  he  made  these  latitude  observations,  the  variation 
of  his  compass.  The  only  significance  in  Cook's  case  is  that 
he  does  not  record  such  an  important  fact,  and  thereby  make  it 
a  matter  of  record  for  science,  for  the  guidance  of,  and  to  be 
checked  by,  subsequent  travelers  over  that  heretofore  untrodden 
ocean  space. 

I  have  now  presented  the  only  prominent  features  that  are 
possible  subjects  of  criticism  that  I  have  discovered  in  Cook's 
narrative.  I  see  no  ulterior  motive  or  object  in  any  of  them. 
They  do  not  connect  as  collateral  or  supporting  evidence  to  any 
suspicious  features  in  his  story.  I  consider  it  necessary  to  make 
such  connections  in  an  analysis,  or  m  a  criticism  of  claims,  if 
they  are  to  be  used  as  evidence,  because  it  is  even  possible  for 
an  intrepid  and  earnest  explorer  to  reach  his  goal,  and  yet  tell 
lies  about  many  details  on  his  journey. 

When  John  Cabot  returned  from  his  discovery  of  North 
America  he  reported  that  when  passing  over  the  Grand  Banks 
of  Newfoundland  his  ship  literally  ploughed  her  way  through 
schools  of  codfish.  This  exaggeration  came  near  causing  his 
undoing.  But  while  it  to  some  extent  and  properly  so,  aflFected 
his  contemporary  fame,  it  had  no  ultimate  effect  whatever  on 
his  claim  as  a  discoverer. 

Walter  Wellman  on  his  return  from  one  of  his  exploring 
expeditions  reported  that  he  had  discovered  a  group  of  islands 
to  the  northeast  of  Rudolph  Island,  which  has  since  been  proven 
untrue.  But  this  false  claim  in  nowise  invalidates  his  just 
claim  to  the  discovery  of  other  lands  farther  south.* 

•Note :— Mr.  Weilman  has  been  pretty  quiet  of  late,  but  during  the  Peaiy- 
Cook  controversy  when  it  wm  popular  to  oppose  Cook.  Wellman  publiah«ci 
an  article  cundenming  Cook,  entitled  'The  First  Stain."  He  attempted  in  this 
artjcle  to  sjow  that  Cook  was  the  first  to  sully  the  fair  name  of  Arctic  ex- 
plorers.  This  article  was  pathetic.  It  bore  evidence  that  it  was  written  with 
a  sad  heart.  Perhaps  sympathetic  readers  had  trouble  in  holding  back  the 
tears,  as  Wellman  pictured  the  awful  bk)t  caused  by  the  conscienceless  Cook  in 
siillying  the  fair  name  of  the  long  list  of  heretofore  unstained  Aretfc  heroes. 
Ihe  astonishment  to  me,  however,  was  that  one  great  mind  couM  be  such  a 
paradox  as  to  carry  such  brilliant  thou^ts,  such  tender  sentimoita  and  have 
in  the  combination  such  a  faulty  monoiy. 


^A^s 


.Pft-r 


Cool^$  Story  Examined 


891 


It  seems  to  be  proven  that  Peary  did  not  go  to  the  Pole. 
He  did  not  go  to  87*  6'  in  1906  or  discover  Crockeiland,  or 
Cape  Thomas  Hubbard,  or  Cape  Jessup,  or  Peary  Channel.  If 
these  claims  be  imtruths,  they  may  smirch  Peary's  reputation, 
but  they  cannot  annul  other  truths.  The  fact  is  eternal  that 
Peary's  achievements  in  former  years,  especially  in  northern 
Greenland,  in  daring  and  brilliance,  are  unexceeded  in  Arctic 

history. 

I  have  endeavored  in  the  preceding  pages  to  unearth 
eveiything  that  appeared  to  me  that  Cook's  bitterest  enemy 
would  desire  to  have  dug  up,  and  have  exposed  the  seemingly 
vuberable  features  that  they  may  be  considered  wholly  on 
their  merits.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  them  separately 
or  conjointly,  there  exists  in  them  no  grounds  upon  which  to  base 
an  argument  that  Cook  did  not  go  to  the  Pole,  which  is  the 
query  we  are  endeavoring  to  consider.  H  a  critical  review  were 
made  of  a  narrative  of  any  other  of  the  reputable  explorers 
covering  such  matters,  which  have  no  connection  with  and 
do  not  support  any  advorse  contention,  it  would  probably  be 
considered  by  the  public  as  malice,  instead  of  analysis,  or  at 
least  captious  to  allude  to  them,  because  almost  any  explorer's 
narrative  would  be  sensitive  to  similar  exposures.  But  I  have 
tried  to  anticipate  everything  that  Cook's  opponents  may  wish 
exposed,  and  to  present  each  of  the  subjects  so  squarely  to  the 
light  that  the  truth  only  may  be  known  and  seen. 

I  have  never  seen  a  report  of  the  Copenhagen  decision.  I 
doubt  if  it  was  ever  pubushed.  The  University  is  supposed  to 
have  been  requested  by  Cook,  in  a  private  capacity,  to  pass 
judgment  for  his  benefit,  on  his  claims  as  the  discoverer  of  the 
North  Pt4e.  The  decision  in  effect  was  (as  I  understand  it) 
that  Cook  furnished  them  no  proof  that  was  in  itself  sufficient 
to  justify  them  in  giving  an  affinnative  decision.  I  also  under- 
stand that  they  included  in  the  decision  that  they  saw  nothing 
in  the  documents  that  were  submitted  to  them  that  in  any  way 
discredited  his  claim.    They  gave  in  effect  a  neutral  decision. 

Let  us  be  fair  with  these  distmguished  members  of  the 


892 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeoeered 


Copenhagen  University  who  have  been  both  criticised  and 
applauded  by  partisans  of  the  two  claimants.  What  else  could 
they  honestly  have  said?  Would  they  have  been  expected  to 
debase  and  defame  themselves  as  did  the  members  of  the 
National  Geographic  Society  in  the  superficial  and  farcical 
examination  of  Peary's  case?  As  members  of  a  scientific 
institution,  could  they  afford  to  do  this?  Could  any  acientifie 
institution  afford  it  for  the  personal  glory  of  a  private  individual, 
in  this  case,  for  a  citizen  of  a  foreign  country? 

How  Cook  could  have  expected  such  a  decision,  or  how  the 
committee  could  have  been  expected  by  anyone  to  give  such  a 
decision,  passes  comprehension.  Cook  certainly  did  not  expect 
it,  but  he  was  driven  by  the  press  to  ask  it.  The  University 
never  could  have  expected  to  give  anything  else  but  what  it  did 
give.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  an  honest  scientist  who  will  say 
that  the  committee  of  the  Copenhagen  University  could  have 
rendered  honestly  any  other  decision  than  the  one  they  did 
render,  or  were  reported  to  have  rendered. 

This  view  of  proofs  need  not  be  gone  over  in  detail  here. 
T^"  ;jrinciples  involved  have  been  reviewed  fully  in  Chapter  VII 
(Part  I)  when  exposing  the  duplicity  and  perfidy  of  the  conunittee 
of  the  National  Geographic  Society.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  repeat, 
that  it  was  an  utter  impossibility  for  Cook  to  have  furnished 
proofs  of  having  reached  the  North  Pole,  except  indirectly  by 
his  story,  and  such  corroborative  evidence  as  his  Eskimo 
companions  could  have  given,  if  they  could  have  been  ^';  ai.iined 
by  the  committee.  None  other  exists  to  be  given.  None 
other  could  exist,  imless  he  had  claimed  to  have  found  land  at 
the  Pole,  or  had  made  accurate  or  «'rT*'gfactory  soundings  there. 

Cook  says  he  discovered  Brauicy  Land  between  the  84th 
and  85th  parallel  on  the  102nd  meridian;  and  glacial  ice,  or  a 
submerged  island,  farther  north  If  Bradley  I^nd  is  where 
he  says  it  is  (and  the  truth  will  be  known  ultimately)  Cook's 
claims  that  far  north  at  least  v/ill  be  proved,  for  he  is  the  only 
percon  who  ever  claimed  to  have  traversed  that  portion  of  the 
glebe.     He  is  the  first  among  men  to  invade  the  Polar  Sea  to 


Cook't  Story  Examined 


808 


the  northwest  of  Grant  Land.  If  Bradley  Land  exista  it  will 
refut?  every  vestige  of  opposition  that  has  ever  been  set  up 
against  Cook,  and  his  claims  to  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole 
probably  will  be  universally  accepted,  whether  true  or  not. 

It  is  now  clearly  evident  that  I  have  been  unable  by  any 
research  and  investigation  that  I  have  made,  to  find  anythmg 
in  Cook's  narrative  to  change  n)y  first  impression  that  it  is  as  a 
whole  a  reasonable  and  believable  story.  It  by  no  means  follows, 
however,  that  because  I  am  unable  to  detect  any  serious  errors, 
that  others  cannot  do  so.  I  have  not,  of  course,  seen  all  that 
has  been  written  agamst  Cook,  and  even  if  it  were  possible  to 
read  it  all,  I  think  it  would  be  unnecessary,  because  all  that 
has  been,  or  can  be  written,  must  of  necessity  be  baaed  upon  th^ 
same  information,  the  same  data,  the  Sbme  evidence.  I  have 
read  all  that  I  have  seen  upon  the  subject,  and  I  now  shall  review 
carefully  the  principal  arguments  which  I  think  cover  all  of 
importance  that  have  been  advanced,  and  endeavor  to  ascertain 
whether  the  k)gic  is  good,  whether  the  argument  is  baaed  on 
solid  ground,  and  the  reasonings  upon  a  just  foundati<Hi,  and 
let  the  reader  reach  his  own  conclusions  as  to  whether  or  not 
Cook's  story  in  all  the  circumstances,  is  believable.  By  this 
method  Cook's  claims  will  be  reviewed  carefully,  and  his  narra- 
tive analyzed. 


'.  1:1 

m 


;  ti 


3» 


CilAP      l    II 
M'J      McKVLKY 


The  sii.iueu  springin^^ 
the  psychol'  .,-iraJ  n     inent 
ge+   his   claims  nil.    -ed  is   in     later 
object      ndoubtecMy      'as   to      jn\ ; 
pro})ably  did  n<     rem     the  sui   mi*  . 
his  statement  a  fe'v  j  a.rs  previou    t 
then  apply  *he  r  il.    '  if  Ise  ir       e  thm^ 
did  not  him  4i  n  t  ij  8      06'  i         16  h. 
cacy  of  his       n  posit     ,,  and  tu    e  in. 
provide  a  i*    ipan  -    aii       ( 
inf'aen<ing  public*  «  :>ini  »n, 
good  mv  als.    Tt     cmly  /aci 
was  the  i    rjur'  '  te«timon: 
that  swettris  tli       he  ha<l  r 
multitude  i  ■  people  .snd 
to  admit  it,  voiddnot 
*  -!ai  aiiiong  civilized  { 


'  tht    >'      \fc'     I  i.  '  incident  at 

liscivdit  (   >ok   mtil  Peary  couJd 

laiysis. 


thi.0 


The 

hf         He  that  Cook 

!^'        aley,      id  that 

as       ^,  and 

*       aU."         Peaiy 

ay  have  felt      e  deli- 

n  a  <iie  therefrom,  to 

These  were  good  tactics  for 

u      inder  the  circiunstances,  not 

n  tJae  shape  of  evidence  produced 

f  a  sulxmied  witness      A  witness 

itedly  lied  for  many  yean  to  a 

eor 'esses  that  he  was  suborned 

a  Mowed       offer  such  testimony  in  any 

Thih  s  all  that  is  so  far  presented 


disT'ivdit  C'  k's  cLuu. 
Iiutti)  »reexr>editions  have  smce  been  dispatched  to  scale  this 
"■  ntain  and  liied.  do  not  care  to  divert  the  argument 
!  vie\<.  tin  'ports.  I  caimot  present  a  very  singular  and 
Si,  ^«nt^  ♦"^idem^  rep  t-ding  the  Mt.  McKirJev  controversy 
in  Lidigii  It  .rf  my  o  .  that  will  so  clearly  express  my  thoughts, 
as  I  ..  V  quoti  ig  n  '  e  Congressional  Record*  an  extract 
from  a  peeoh  in  th  r-ate  of  the  United  States  by  Senator 
Poindexter. 

The  first  description   of  conditions   in   the   immediate 
•Siifia— Vol.  41— No.  116. 

894 


Mt.    McKinley 


305 


region  of  the  Pole  <■•  er  published  waa  cabled  by  Doctor  Cook 
from  Lerwick,  Shetland  Ulands,  to  the  New  York  Herald 
September  1,  1909.  This  account  waa  printed  in  full  in  the 
New  York  Herald,  September  «.  1909.  In  thi^4  account  Doctor 
Cook  reported  the  iminediute  polar  surface  as  a  sea  of  moving 
ice,  composed  of  old  ice,  o  large  level  ice  fields;  i^jparoitly 
piirplc-blue  in  color;  drift  >g  southeast;  ice  moving  freely; 
smooth  surface,  easy  traveling;  pressure  lines  less  markra, 
easily  crossed;  leads  and  water  sky  east  and  south;  temperature 
-15  to  -46;  horizon  seemingly  extended  a  deep  sea;  no  land. 
The  only  other  account  ever  published  of  physical  conditions  at 
the  Pole  was  sent  out  by  Robert  E.  Peary  from  Indian  Harbor, 
Labrador,  to  the  New  York  Times,  on  September  11  and  1«, 
1909,  nine  days  after  book's  account  was  published  hi  the 
Herald.  In  this  account  Peary  stated  that  he  was  at  the  Pole 
on  April  6,  1909,  and  corroborated  in  every  material  detail  the 
previously  published  description  of  Dr.  Cook  as  to  sea,  ice, 
Jetnperature,  drift,  olors,  absence  of  land,  at  the  Pole.  If 
Cook  did  not  reach  the  Pole  with  his  Esquimaux  in  1908,  how 
did  he  know  the  physical  conditions  surrounding  it?  There 
wa.s  no  human  being  who  knew  or  ever  claimed  to  know  previous 
to  that  time;  and  his  account  of  the  facta  corroborated  by  Peary 
is  at  variance  with  previous  theories. 

"  Previous  to  the  so-called  polar  controversy  every  one  who 
had  ever  been  associated  with  Cook  in  exploring  expeditions 
spoke  well  of  his  character  and  ability.  When  the  iMlar 
controversy  arose  and  grew  bitter  an  attempt  was  made  to 
discredit  Cook  by  attacking  his  account  of  the  ascent  of  Mount 
McKinley.  In  this  matter,  as  in  the  polar  trip,  Doctor  Cook 
puhlished  an  account  of  his  explorations.  In  Harper'a  Monthly 
Magazine  for  May,  1907,  he  described  the  physical  conditions 
and  appearances  of  the  ascent  and  the  summit  of  McKinley. 
This  was  published  in  book  form  in  1908.  Previous  to  these 
publications  no  one  had  ever  described  the  summit  of  Mc- 
Kinley. No  one  claimed  to  know  its  condition  or  appearance. 
He  described  minutely  the  'northeast  ridge',  its  sharp  siimmit, 
and  the  route  by  it  to  the  extreme  summit  of  the  mountain;  the 
gi  -at  upstanding  granite  rocks  at  the  point  of  approach  to  the 
Median  Glacier,  or  'Grand  Basin',  lying  between  the  north 
and  south  peaks  of  the  extreme  sutp  two  ^uni"        ^-ks 

themselves;  and  Lnat  the  south  p*  *hf 

No  one  had  ever  stated  these  fac1> 
tion  of  them.    No  one  ever  clai- 


S  i 


rn 


.fc 


396 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


ascent  of  the  mountain.    They  could  only  be  ucertained  by  an 
ascent  of  the  mountain. 

"In  Scribner'a  Magazine  for  November,  1918,  Archdeacon 
Hudson  Stuck  publishes  an  account  of  his  own  subsequent 
ascent  of  the  mountain.  In  it  he  corroborates  in  every  material 
feature  Cook's  previously  published  account  of  the  sharp  back- 
bone of  the  northeast  ridge;  the  ^  iicidties  of  its  ascent;  the 
Seat  granite  rocks  at  the  entrance  to  the  Grand  Basin;  the 
edian  Glacier;  the  north  and  south  peaks,  and  that  the  south 
peak  is  the  higher. 

"It  is  difficult  to  explain  Doctor  Cook's  previously 
published  accurate  description  of  these  things,  the  first  ever 
given,  except  by  admitting  his  actual  ascent  of  the  mountain's 
summit.  "* 

'Mount  McKinley  and  Mountob  climbers'  proofs  by  Edwm  Swift  Balch. 
Campkn  and  Compuiy,  Philadelphia. 

This  book  was  issued  during  the  close  of  1914  by  a  noted  author  and 
mountam  climber.  The  book  to  my  mmd  is  a  masterpiece  of  the  reviewer's  art. 
He  compares  the  narratives.  statemenU  and  denials  of  the  various  claimants 
who  followed  Cook,  and  proves  convincingly  by  their  own  writings  that  Cook 
was  the  first  to  reach  the  summ* . 

A  pamphlet  somewhat  ak>ii«-  the  same  lines  as  Mr.  Batch's  book  oititled 
Motmt  MeKtnley,  Ut  bearing  on  ike  Polar  Controeeny  by  E.  C.  Host,  Waahingtoa, 
D.  C.  appeared  also  in  1914.  The  author  is  a  sk  lied  artist  and  traveler.  He 
I*P?*l!''**  Cook's  photograph  of  the  top  of  Mount  McKinley,  also  a  {^tMiaph 
by  Bebnore  Browne  of  what  Browne  calls  Cook's  Fake  Mountain,  bringing  \Sm 
\Mo  pictures  to  the  same  scale,  thereby  exposing  the  counterfeit  nature  of 
Browne  s  picture.  He  also  exposes  the  shuffling  of  both  Browne  and  the 
Reverend  Archdeacon  Hudson  Stuck  in  a  most  convincing  wi^y. 


.l^& 


CHAPTER  III 


COOK'S  FOOD  ALLOWANCE 

Much  has  been  written  to  show  that  Cook  did  not  have 
enough  food  and  could  not  get  enough,  with  other  supplies, 
on  his  two  sleds  to  support  him  for  80  days. 

Three  articles  appeared  in  The  OuUcjk,  over  the  signature 
of  George  Kennan.  They  attracted  attention;  perhaps  were 
decisive  at  the  time,  as  to  Cook's  fate.  They  are,  therefore, 
entitled  to  careful  consideration.  The  first  article  appeared 
in  the  issue  of  October  i,  1909,  attempting  to  show  that  Cook 
could  not  have  traveled  as  far  as  he  claimed  he  did,  because  he 
could  not  have  packed  upon  his  two  sleds  sufficient  food  for 
the  journey. 

The  following  extracts*  cover  the  purport  of  the  first  article, 
omitting  most  of  the  author's  allusions  to  his  own  feats  in  other 
fields  as  immaterial;  excepting,  however,  his  humble  admission 
that  he  "acquired  what  may  fairly  be  called  an  expert  judgment 
with  regard  to  the  subject  under  discussion — ^Arctic  sledging." 

"His  dog  food,  apparently  consisted  of  the  flesh  of  musk- 
oxen,  since  he  had  killml  more  than  a  hundred  of  these  animals 
shortly  before  he  began  his  final  dash.  Musk-ox  flesh,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  palatability  is  not  a  good  dog  food,  because  it 
contams  a  high  percentage  of  water  and  is  very  heavy  m  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  of  nourishment  that  it  affords. " 


i  ^1 


Now  in  order  to  stay  eighty-two  days  in  the  field,  with 
twenty-six  dogs.  Dr.  Cook  would  have  had  to  start  from  the 
northern  end  of  Heiberg  Island  with  6000  pounds  ri  dog  food 
loaded  on  two  sledges,  to  say  nothing  of  piel,  camp  equipage, 
spare  clotiiing,  and  twelve  week's  food  for  three  men. 
*OMttook.  Oct.  i,  1800,  pftge  US. 

S97 


896 


Has  ihe  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


II' 


W  ft 


H:f 


"In  other  words,  twenty-six  dogs  would  have  had  to  'dash* 
out  over  the  polar  ice  with  a  load  of  nearly  three  tons.  I  do  not 
believe  that  it  would  have  been  possible  to  cany  such  a  load 
even  over  a  smooUi  Siberian  tundra.  Of  course,  Dr.  Cook 
might  have  started  with  only  half  this  quantity  of  musk-ox 
fl€»h,  and  might  have  lessened  his  consumption  by  gradually 
killing  his  dogs;  but  in  that  case,  he  could  hardly  have  remained 
eighty-two  days  in  the  field  and  made  1,140  nautical  miles 
over  polar  ice,  even  if  he  fed  d<^  to  dog  and  ate  dog  until  there 
were  no  dogs  left. 

"As  a  dog  sledger  of  some  experience,  I  do  not  believe  it 
possible  either  to  carry  five  thousand  pounds  of  dog  food  on 
t^o  sledges,  or  to  remain  eighty-two  days  in  the  field  without 
supporting  parties,  food  deposits,  or  game  supplies. " 

In  his  second  article  Kennan  was  forced  by  adverse  criticism 
to  admit  that  no  facts  existed  for  publishing  this  musk-ox 
falsehood.  The  fabric,  therefore,  that  was  erected  in  such  a 
plausible  manner,  from  such  data  falls  upon  the  removal  of  its 
base.  The  inducement  that  tempted  this  magazine,  to  print 
such  a  baseless  fabrication  can  only  be  conjectured.  The 
editors  knew  it  was  unfoimded  evidence,  and  that  it  was 
trumped  up  solely  to  convict  a  person  who,  for  all  they  knew, 
was  innocent.  But  no  one  would  have  supposed  them  so 
unsophisticated  as  to  imagine  that  such  a  transparmt  fraud 
could  pass  muster,  undetected.  But  for  some  reason  they  took 
the  chance. 

It  is  difficult  to  make  counterfeits  that  will  circulate 
undetected.  Mr.  Kennan's  second  article*  gets  the  mint 
stamp  of  the  editors  to  help  it  pass  current.  Thqr  preface  the 
article  with  an  editorial  note,  in  which  they  state  "It  is,  however, 
in  the  meantime  perfectly  proper  to  comment  upon  aetwd 
itatements  made  by  either  explorer."  No  one  can  question 
this  position,  but  the  article  thus  endorsed  then  deliberately 
omits  "ashial  atatements"  and  substitutes  distorted  and  invented 

ones. 

The  fir  tion  of  this  second  article  is  an  admission  as 

before  stateu.    jat  the  facts  for  the  firsi  article  were  fabricated. 

*Oiilloofc,  Oct.  16. 1909. 


Cook^s  Food  AUovxmce 


399 


tet,  without  compunction,  the  writer  proceeds,  under  the 
endorsement  above  noted,  to  perpetrate  a  ^second,  and  more 
despicable  fraud  than  in  the  first.  It  lays  a  foundation  for 
argument  in  "starved  dogs"  instead  of  "musk-oxen."  It 
would  seem  that  only  minds  governed  by  moral  turpitude  would 
have  the  audacity  to  invent  or  to  publish  such  statistics. 

Kennan  assumes  that  Cook's  dogs  were  "starved,  until 
more  than  half  of  them  died  of  starvation."    There  is  not  one 
word  in  Cook's  writings  to  justify  such  a  monstrous  accusation. 
To  emphasize  this  basic  fact  of  "starvation"  as  if  the  editorial 
endorsement  was  insufficient,  the  article  re-iterates  the  words 
"«»arved"— "starved  dogs"— "starvation  diet"— "starvation 
biisis"— "dogs  starved  to  death"— "dogs  died  of  starvation" 
1  tc.,  ten  times  in  three  columns  of  the  magazine.    Then  ob 
vaously  assuming  that  the  starvation  falsehood  is  accepted  bj 
the  reader,  the  article  proceeds  from  this  false  premise  to  make 
compi  tations  from  scientific  authorities  as  to  the  value  of  such 
food,  and  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  Cook  deliberately 
starved  his  dogs  to  death,  until  there  were  only  "five  pounds  of 
food  l^  to  a  dog  saturated  with  fatigue  toxins. "    Then,  in  that 
condition  that  remnant  was  eaten. 

jl?l  15  Based  up<m  such  a  falsehood,  no  conclusion  is  of  any  value. 
It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  chase  it  farther.  This  article 
obviously  was  took  than  the  public  could  bear.  The  invention 
was  too  plain.  The  complaints  were  so  numerous  and  bitter, 
that  it  required  one  more  article,  which  appeared  in  the  Novem- 
ber 20th  number  to  gracelessly  recede  from  the  subject. 

Whether  Cook  is  guilty  or  innocent,  he  should  not  =  e 
compelled  in  a  civilixsd  community  to  defend  himself  against 
such  shamelessness  as  this. 

The  question  of  Cook's  food  supply  will  now  be  treated 
fully,  and  it  is  believed  with  sufficient  clarity  to  cover  and  meet 
aU  arguments,  so  far  published.  It  is  only  just  to  make  a 
separate  analysb,  based  upon  Cook's  exact  w<wrds,^and  submit 
it  to  a  candid  public. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  consume  much  space  in  demonstratmg 


400 


H(u  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


r  :^ 


7i:"' 


that  Cook  carried  suflident  food  for  his  needs.  He  gives  a  full 
inventory  of  the  cargo  on  his  sleds,  and  when  compared  with 
Nansen's  and  Amundsen's,  the  inventory  is  itself  conclusive 
evidoice  of  its  suflBciency.  Nevertheless  as  the  Table  No.  12*  or 
bill  of  fare  which  follows,  gives  opportunity  to  demonstrate  other 
matters  equally  important,  it  is  inserted. 

At  the  time  that  Kennan  wrote  his  article,  all  that  Cook 
had  written  about  his  supply  and  his  food  allowance  was  under 
the  following  dates:  March  18,  19,  20,  21,  29,  April  11,  14,  19, 
20,  SO,  May  S,  6,  24  and  June  18.  Each  day  will  be  considered 
separately.  It  will  be  shown  that  Cook's  statements  are  un- 
mistakable in  meaning,  and  perfectly  consistent.  To  examine 
them,  even  though  tedious,  is  to  inspire  confidence  in  the 
truthfulness  of  Cook's  whole  narrative.  It  would  seem  that 
no  one,  unless  truthful,  could  so  completely  cover  his  tracks, 
involving  so  many  intricate  and  unusual  corditions. 

Here  are  the  dates  and  tJie  record : 

5th  installment.! 

March  18.  "The  dogs  had  been  doubly  fed  the  night  be- 
fore. They  were  not  to  be  fed  again  for  two  days.  Twenty- 
six  dogs  were  picked  and  upon  two  sleds  were  loaded  all  our 
needs  for  eighty  days." 

March  19.  "Supporting  party  volunteered  to  push  along 
another  day  without  dog  food, " 

March  20.  "After  disposing  of  a  pot  of  steaming  musk-ox 
loms  and  broth,  followed  by  a  double  brew  of  tea,  our  last 
helpers  returned.  With  empty  sleds,  and  hungry  dogs  they 
hoped  to  reach  the  land  in  one  long  day's  travel.  But  this  would 
make  the  fourth  day  without  food  for  their  dogs,  and  in  case  of 
storm,  or  moving  ice,  other  days  of  famine  might  easily  fall  to 
their  lot.  They  had,  however,  abimdance  of  dogs  and  might 
sacrifice  a  few  for  the  benefit  of  the  others,  as  we  must  often  do. " 

March  21.  "Previously  -ve  permitted  ourselves  some 
luxuries.  A  pound  of  coal  oil,  and  a  good  deal  of  musk-ox 
taJlow  were  burned  each  day  to  heat  the  igloo,  and  vO  cook 
abundant   food.    Extra   meats   were   served   when   occasion 

•P*ge  407. 

tQuoted  from  Nno  York  Herald,  September,  1909. 


Cook^s  Food  Allowance 


401 


called  for  it,  and  each  man  ate  and  drank  all  he  desired.  If  the 
stockings  or  mittens  were  wet,  there  was  fire  enough  to  dry 
them  out,  but  all  this  must  now  be  changed." 

6th  installment. 

March  21.  "There  was  a  sharp  daily  allowance  of  food 
and  fuel.  One  poimd  o'  pemmican  per  day  for  dogs,  about  the 
same  for  men,  with  just  a  taste  of  other  things.  Fortimately 
we  were  well  stuffed  for  the  race  with  fresh  meat  in  the  lucky 
run  through  the  game  lands.  Atfirtt  no  great  hardship  joUmsed 
the  changed  routine.  We  filled  up  sufficiently  on  cold  meats,  and 
used  bodily  tissue. "  (How  many  days  he  did  this  he  does  not 
say.) 

"After  two  cups  of  tea,  a  watch  siie  biscuit,  a  chip  of 
frozen  meat,  and  a  boulder  of  pemmican,  we  crept  out  of  our 
bags." 

0th  installment. 

March  29.    "  A  double  ration  was  eaten. " 

10th  installment. 

April  11.    Latitude  ST  20'— Longitude  95"  19'  gouig  north. 

"Nearly  half  of  the  food  allowance  had  been  used.  In 
long  marches,  supplies  had  been  :iiore  liberally  used  than 
anticipated,  and  now  our  dog  teams  were  much  reduced  in 
number.  A  hard  necessity  had  forced  the  cruel  law  of  the 
survival  of  the  fittest,  for  the  less  useful  d<^  were  fed  to  the 
steady  working  survivors.  Owing  to  the  food  limits  and  the 
advacing  season,  we  could  not  prudently  continue  the  outward 
march  a  fortnight  longer. 

"We  had  dragged  ourselves  860*  miles  over  the  polar  sea 
in  twenty-four  days,  including  delays  and  detours.  This  gave 
an  average  of  nearly  thirteen  daily  on  an  air  line  in  our  course. 
There  remained  an  unknown  line  of  160  miles  before  our  am- 
bitions could  be  satisfied.  The  same  average  advance  which  we 
had  made  on  the  pack  would  take  us  to  the  pole  in  thirteen 
days." 

"There  was  food  and  fuel  enough  to  risk  this  adventure." 

11th  installment. 

April  14.  "  Other  dogs  had  gone  into  the  stomachs  of  Uieir 
hungry  companions,  etc." 

*Thu  is  written  in  "Mf  AUaammt  qf  the  Fob"  u  three  hundred  dayi. 
The  error  h—  been  eiphmed  on  ■aother  pfe. 


402 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


Ap"l  19-  "The  tent  was  pitched,  the  dogs  were  silenced 
by  blocks  of  pemmican.  In  us  now  enthusiasm  was  aroused  by 
a  liberal  pot  of  pea  soup,  and  a  few  chipa  of  frozen  meat. " 

April  20.  "The  dogs  which  had  joined  in  the  choms  of 
gladness,  were  given  an  extra  lump  of  pemmican. " 

12th  installment. 

April  SO.  "Under  fair  conditions  there  was  barely  food 
enough  to  reach  land,  while  even  short  delays  might  easily 
jeopardize  our  return.  We  could  not,  therefore,  do  otherwise 
than  to  force  ourselves  against  the  wind  and  drift  with  all 
possible  speed,  closing  the  eye  to  unavoidable  suffei-ing." 

May  3.  "The  steady  diet  of  pemmican,  tea  and  biscuit 
was  now  entirely  satisfactory.  We  longed  for  enough  to  give 
a  real  filling  sense,  but  the  ration  was  slightly  reduced,  rather  than 
mcreased. " 

May  6.  "The  food  supply  was  noticeably  decreasing,  the 
daily  allowance  was  reduced.  With  such  weather,  starvation 
seemed  inevitable." 

May  24.     Near  84"'  00',  97°  00'  Longitude. 

"There  remained  on  the  sleds  scarcely  enough  food  to  reach 
our  caches,  unless  we  averaged  fifteen  miles  daily.  On  the 
retiim  from  the  pole  to  here,  we  had  only  been  able  to  make 
twelve  miles  daily.  Now  our  strength  even  under  fair  condi- 
tions did  not  seem  to  be  equal  to  more  than  ten  miles.  .  .  . 
Trying  to  make  the  most  of  our  hard  lot,  a  straight  course  was 
set  for  the  musk-ox  lands  of  the  inner  crossing. " 

He  says  further: 

"At  the  83rd  parallel,  we  found  ourselves  to  the  west  of  a 
large  tract  extending  southward.  The  ice  changed  to  small 
fields.  .  .  .  With  a  few  lines  on  paper  to  register  the  life  of 
suffering,  the  food  for  man  and  dog  was  reduced  to  a  three 
quarter  ration,  while  the  difliculties  of  ice  travel  rose  to  dis- 
heartemng  heights.  ...  At  the  end  of  twenty  days 
through  thick  fog,  the  sky  cleared  and  we  foimd  ourselves  far 
down  in  Prince  Gustav  Sea. " 

"Passing  through  Hassel  Sound  between  the  Ringes 
Islands,  bears  and  seals  were  seciu«d. " 

June  IS.-— This  brings  Cook  to  June  18,  and  to  the  end  ol 
his  anxiety  as  to  food,  with  21.8  pounds  of  pemmican  stiU  on 
his  sled,  as  is  shown  m  Table  12.    He  also  had  10  dogs,  some  of 


CooVt  Food  AUowmee 


408 


which  would  have  been  kiUed  if  necesaary.  This  ia  a  perfecUy 
consistent  narrat.  e  from  b^inning  to  end,  agreeing  in  every 
respect  with  aU  his  statements,  and  with  aU  his  calculations. 
It  shows  how  he  could  have  lived  with  the  allowance  he  provided 

pt  the  start. 

We  now  may  consider  intelligently  the  stotements 
<eparately  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  food  and  check  them  with 
other  matters.  Take  March  18:  Cook  writes  "Etukishuk  and 
Ahwela,  two  young  Eskimos,  each  20  years  old,  had  been  chosen 
as  best  fitted  to  be  my  companions  m  the  long  run  of  destiny. 
Twenty-six  dogs  were  pkked,  and  upon  two  sleds  were  k>aded 
allourneedsforastay  of  eighty  days." 

"The  little  train,  therefore,  which  followed  me  into  the 
further  mystery  was  composed  of  two  sleds  carrying  600  pounds 
drawn  by  thirteen  dogs  under  the  lash  of  an  expert  driver. 
'The  combmed  weight  was  as  follows: 


Pemmican 
Todnu 

Musk-ox  tenderloin 
Tea 
Coffee 
Sugar 

Pea  Soup  powdered 
and  compressed 


805  lbs. 

%5  lbs. 

50  lbs. 

9,  lbs. 

1  lb. 

25  lbs. 


Condensed  Milk    40  lbs 


Siirprise 
Milk  biscuit 
Petroleum 
Wood  Alcohol 
Candles 


10  lbs.        Matches 


5  lbs. 
60  lbs. 
80  lbs. 

2  lbs. 

3  lbs. 

1  lb." 


Then  foMows  a  list  of  the  camp  equipment.    It  will,  therefore, 
be  se^  that  the  80  days  of  food  allowance  consisted  of : 

805  lbs.  of  pemmican. 
50  lbs.  of  Musk-ox  loins,  and 
960  lbs.  of  dog  carcasses  (dog  food). 

Cook  unfortunately  does  not  give  the  weight  of  his  dogs. 
This  weight  is  arrived  at  in  the  following  maimer.  Cook 
selected  108  dogs  before  leaving  Annoatok  on  Februaiy  19, 
1908.  His  decision  to  make  the  expedition  to  the  Pole  was 
because  of  the  remarkable  opportunity  afFoided  to  sefect  the 
best  dogs  and  men  for  the  purpoee.  In  his  second  inatalhnent 
he  writes:  "A  diligent  expk>ration  of  the  town  (Annoatok) 
disclosed  the  fact  that  we  had  reached  not  only  the  nortliem- 


404 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecovered 


m 


t 


most  town,  but  the  most  prosperous  settlement  of  the  Green- 
land shore." 

"The  best  hunters  had  gathered  here  for  the  winter  bear 

hunt.    This   game   catch   had   been   very   lucky.    Immense 

catches  of  the  meat  were  strewn  along  the  shore.    More  than 

100  dogt  voice  the  hunt  force  with  which  the  Eskuno  prosperity 

is  measured.    The  wealth  m  food  and  furs  in  this  place  fixed 

my  determination  on  the  spot  for  the  polar  dash.    We  wei« 

standing  at  a  point  700  miles  from  the  pole.     The  etrongeel 

force  of  men,  the  best  teams,  and  unlimited  supply  of  food  com- 

bmed  with  the  equipment  on  board  the  yacht,  formed  an  ideal 

pUnt  from  which  to  work  out  the  campaign. "    Much  more  that 

he  writes,  shows  that  the  Eskimos  themselves  had  selected 

the  best  dogs,  for  their  own  hunting  purposes.    Prom  these 

dogs,  after  a  winter's  experience  with  them  in  hunting.  Cook 

■elected  lOS  for  his  poUr  trip.    After  traveling  400  mUes  acitMs 

EUesmere  Land  with  these  108  dogs,  he  then  selected  from  this 

later  experience,  for  the  polar  dash,  the  best  26  dogs  in  the 

Arctic. 

When  Peaiy  came  north  m  August  of  the  same  year,  he 
waa  compelled  to  make  his  selection  from  what  dogs  remained. 
Peaiy  says  :♦  "  My  dogs  weighed  from  80  to  100  lbs.  each,  and 
one  of  them  weighed  185  lbs."  When  it  is  remembered  that 
Peaiy  had  246  dogs,  which  he  says  averaged  00  lbs.  each  (dis- 
carding the  one  dog  of  125  lbs.)  it  would  be  fair  to  assume  that 
Cook's  lOS  dogs  wouW  average  more,  and  his  final  sefection  of 
26  would  probably  average  &5  lbs.  each.  But  it  wiU  be  assumed 
that  Cook's  dogs  only  weighed  60  lbs.  each,  instead  of  05  lbs. 
The  purpose  herein  is  to  show  that  at  60  lbs.  per  dog  he  couU 
pull  through. 

Cook  killed  14  dogs  enroute  to  the  Pole,  and  2  returning, 
or  16  altogether;  which  dogs  furnished  960  lbs.  of  carcasses 
as  food  for  the  surviving  dogs.  This  was  all  dog  food  every 
pound.  All  arctic  travelers  say,  that  a  hungry  Eskimo  dog 
that  is  fed  a  dead  animal  or  bird,  eats  hair,  feathers,  and  all. 
•North  Pek.  Fbge  70. 


Cook's  Food  AUowanee 


405 


leaving  nothing  on  the  ice  when  he  has  finished  his  meal. 

Therefore,  Cook  had  at  the  start  805  lbs  of  pemmican  and 
50  lbs.  of  musk-ox  loins  as  food  for  the  men  and  doga,  and  960 
lbs.  of  dog  (carcasses)  extra,  as  food  for  dogs.  All  of  these 
carcasses  were  at  one  time  or  another  fed  out  to  surviving  dogs. 
Cook  and  Peary  both  fed  one  pound  of  p«nmican  per  day  as  a 
raUon,  for  man.  and  dog,  aUke.  The  men  "  had  a  taste  of  other 
things,"  but  this  was  the  allowance  of  penwnican. 

Cook  does  not  give  the  dates  on  which  each  dog  was  killed 
(or  died).    He  killed  a  dog  at  the  proper  time,  for  economical 
use  of  his  provisions.    No  theoretical  improvement  can  be 
made   upon  what  he  actuaUy  did,  in  selecting  days  for  the 
kiUing  of  the  dogs.    But  for  uniformity  in  figures,  it  is  supposed 
that  tliey  were  killed  just  as  fast  as  needed  for  food,  but  kUling 
the  last  of  the  fourteen,  the  day  before  reaching  the  Pole,  in 
order  that  this  hwt  dog  might  consume  before  being  killed  as 
much  of  the  food  supply  as  possible,  aUowing  the  si'rviving 
dogs  a  ration  of  fresh  dog  meat,  of  two  and  a  half  pounds, 
and  a  ration  of  one  pound  of  penunican.    With  this  data,  u 
tabulated  a  biU  of  fare,  (Tabte  12),  which  could  have  been 
adopted  by  Cook,  although,  of  course,  he  improved  upon  it. 
Anyway  it  is  sufficient  for  this  argument. 

April  11,  he  says:    "Nearly  one  half  of  the  food  aUowance 
is  gone."    Every  fair  minded  man  knows  what  that  means. 
"Nearly  one  half"  does  not  mean  fully  one  half.    As  a  basU 
of  figuring,  however,  it  may  be  assumed  it  means  more  than  one 
fourth  and  less  than  one  half,  or  say  three  eights;  but  to  figure^ 
it  as  fully  one  half  would  be  improper.    "Food  allowance 
does  not  mean  simply  pemmican.    It  means  "food  albwance' 
which  includes  dog  carcasses  fed  into  live  dogs,  as  was  naen- 
tioned,  and  cafcuktisd  upon  in  the  beginning,  and  to  which 
consumption  he  t     ii  refers.    He  was,  on  that  date,  April  11, 
clearly  measuring  all  the  possibilities  of  reaching  the  Pole,  wd 
getting  back  to  land,  and  what  he  says  shouM  be  fairly  oonstrued 
m  the  Ught  of  that  fact.    He  had  been  out  «4  days,  IS  days 
*NBiiaat  alloirad  1  lb.  dog  flMh  M  •  ratim  for  a  dog. 


m 


406 


Ra$  the  No,ih  Pole  B«'    Ditcovtred 


more  would  complete  his  outward  march  in  37  dayi.  The 
same  number  in  retummg  would  bring  him  back  to  land  in 
seventy-four  days,  showing  m>  far  that  his  eighty  days  estimate 
was  proper  and  ample. 

Fifth  Stotement,  Twelfth  InstaUment. 

May  «4.  Near  84'  00'  -97'  00'  long..  Cook  writes: 
"There  remained  on  the  sleds  scarcely  enough  food  to  reach  oup 
Mches,  unless  we  averaged  fifteen  miles  diuly.  On  the  return 
from  Uie  Pole  to  here,  we  had  only  been  able  to  make  twelve 
miles  daily.  Now  our  strength,  even  under  fair  conditions,  did 
not  seem  to  be  equal  to  more  than  ten  miles.  .  .  .  Trying 
to  make  the  most  of  our  hard  lot,  a  straiglit  course  was  set  for 
the  musk-ox  lands  of  the  inner  crossing." 

He  was  near  84'  00*  Latitude,  97«  00'  Longitude.  His 
cache  at  Svartevoeg  was  in  Latitude  81  •  20',  Longitude  93«  OO', 
about  186  miles  distant,  in  direct  Une  or  say  200  miles  of  actual 
travel.  To  reach  this,  he  says  he  would  need  to  travel  fifteen 
miles  per  day,  or  thirteen  and  one-third  days.  ITiis  would 
bring  him  to  June  6  or  7.  But  he  says  "  Our  strength  even  under 
Uix  conditions  did  not  seem  to  be  equal  to  more  than  ten 
mikis."  This  would  mean  twenty  days  travel  to  teach  his 
cache,  or  to  June  18.  He  had  ten  dogs  and  three  men  to  feed, 
or  thirteen  full  ratums  for  thirteen  and  one-third  days.  He  was 
feeding  reduced  rations  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  11.0 
pounds  per  day,  which  would  require  ««0  pounds  for  twenty 
days.  Table  12  shows  he  had  on  his  sled  221.8  pounds.  His 
final  remarks  bring  him  beycmd  anxiety  (or  food. 

"At  the  88rd  parallel,  we  found  ourselves  to  the  west  of  a 
large  tract  extending  southward.    The  ice  chMiged  to  small 
fields  ......    With  a  few  lines  on  paper  to  register  the 

ife  of  suffering  the  food  for  man  and  dog  was  reduced  to  a  three 
Iquarter  ration,  while  the  difliculties  of  ice  travel  rose  to  dis 

heartening  heights At  the  end  of  twenty 

days  Uuough  thick  fog,  the  sky  cleared  and  we  found  oursdves 
far  down  m  Prince  Gustav  Sea.  Passing  through  Hassel  Sound 
letween  the  Hinges  Islands  bears  and  seals  were  secured. " 


flook*$  Food  AUowanct 


TABIJiXn. 


DOGS 


Date 


BILL  OF  FARE 
FOOD  ALLOWANCE 


DOGS 


iPemmican 
Ration 
lib. 


ToUl  Wft 


MEN 


*Pemini- 

au 

Ration 

lib. 


fed 

to 

each 

ioubly  fed  the  niffht  before 


ToUl 


Total 
wst.fed 
toS 
men.f 


TOTAL 

PEMMI. 

CAN 


m 


Total 

COD- 

mimed 
Iba. 


Lrft 
on 


Um. 


Mar       _, 

18  g6    Th«y  were  not  to  be  fed  again  for  two  day».  806 

"Supportmg  party  volunteered  to  piuh  akmc  another  day  without  dof 

food." 

19  M 


to      S«    See  map  No. 
Fed  morning  meal 


J L 


SI 

«« 

ts 

84 
U 

26 

§7 

18 

%» 

80 

81 

Apr. 

1 

8 

8 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 


8«i 
M 

88 

84 
88 
88 


Few 
lit 

8nd 

8rd 

4th 


8.    Supporting  party  returned  after  aupper. 
from  food  Irft  mi  ice  by  lunwrting  party. 


5th 
0th 

19|  7th 
isj  Rth 
171      i)th 


Algea 
00 

00 

00 

00 

00 
00 
00 
00 
00 


were  gal 

hei«d. 

80 

80 

80 

SO 

80 

80 

80 

80 

m 

80 

80 

80 

80 

80 

80 

80 

80 

80 

80 

.8 
1.0 
1.0 

.4 

.4 

.4 

.4 

.84 

.84 

.85 

.85 


.8 

.8 

.85 

.85 

.85 

.85 

.8 

.8 

.14 

=  l4l 


•8 


054.1 

044.8 
080.8 

088.8 

Ml.O 

018.8 

•00.0 

000 

5»4.5 

fiaa.o 
t50  Iba.  muak-o»  Imm  dfapoaad  oTia 


18 
80 
•0 

10 

10 

9.0 

9.0 

8.0 

8.0 

10.7 

10.7 


9.8 
9.8 
8.0 
8.0 
7.8 
7.8 
8.0 
0.0 
5.5 
5.5 


798 
708 
740 

780 

780 

710.4 

700.8 

081.8 

084.8 

074.1 

088.4 


*Nai>aen  allowed  1  lb.  aa  a  ration, 
first  9  daya. 

tin  Older  to  avoid  oomplieation  m  thia  account  aad  to  avoid  extn 
in  this  taUe,  I  have  diqtoaed  of  the  50  Iba.  of  muak-<n  loina  during  the 
daya  after  leaving  the  aupportng  party  by  entering  it  in  the  men'a  rood 

out  &ibr  in  double  mtioaa  until  it  ia 

bwiatka 


of  penunkan,  and  feeding  it 
■Ms'a  food  coloui  tbaa  piw 


fiiat9 


408 


Bat  itu  North  Pole  Been  Dieeovered 


m^ 


1 

1    FOOD  ALLOWANCE 

'KVTAr 

DOGS 

DOGS              liMEN 

ivri  Al< 
PEMMI- 

! 

CAN 

1  Dog  Car-*        Pemmican 
cawes           Ratioa 
tH  lb*.              1  lb. 

P^mini> 
Ratirin 
lib. 

Tn*Al 

Left 
on 

Live  Dogt 

Car- 

Wgt.   ToUllWRt 

1  Total 

Total 

lOUU 

Con- 

Date 

Dogi  died 

caM 

fed      wgt. 

1  U  I 

wgt. 

wgt.  fed 

■umed 

•bda 

wei^tl     to    {  fed. 

,1  to 

fed. 

toS 

Ibe. 

Iba. 

each             n  each 

men. 

1    dog.l            Odoc. 

} 

"Food  allowanoenMrijrhdf  gone. "     (See  page  409)              i 

1 

11 

16 

10th 

60    i    1.8 

SO 

1 

I.« 

8 

4.6       584.4 

If 

1    1.8 

80 

.1 

i.S 

8 

4.6       S79.8 

18 

18 

nth 

ao  1   to 

80 

1 

8 

8         876.8 

"0 

1 

lier  dogt  ha 

d  gone  lato  the  stomacha  of  their  hungry  companiou." 

14 

to 
so       to 

80 

s 

8         578.8 

15 

14     Itth 

88 

8 

570.8 

16 

14 

to 

88 

8 

567.8 

17 

11    inh 

00 

to 

86 

a 

564.8 

18 

18 

to 

86 

8 

561.8 

19 

It     14th 

60 

t.o 

84 

;; 

1>         558.8 

80 

It 

to 

84 

8 

8 

555.8 

BMcbedPole. 

tl       18^ 

to 

84 

8 

^(r8.8 

tl       11     Uth 

60 

t.o 

^ 

r 

' 

S 

548.8 

LeftPtoie. 

'_ 

ts 

11 

to 

88 

■^            '< 

8         546.8 

t4 

10 

10th 

60 

&,  0 

80 

•>           1- 

8         548.8 

ts 

10 

8.0 

80 

V 

8         5408 

•8 

10 

8.0 

80 

S 

8         587.8 

tr 

10 

1.0 

10 

8 

8         584.8 

ts 

10 

10 

8 

IS         581.8 

t9 

10 

10 

8 

IS         508.6 

80 

10 

10 

8 

>'S         495.8 

May 

10 

10 

8 

18 

488.8 

10 

10 

S 

1./ 

468.8 

10 

10 

8 

456.8 

10 

10 

8 

448.8 

10 

10 

8 

480.8 

10 

.8 

8 

8 

11            j 

419.8 

10 

.S 

3 

3 

11      ]  i1».8 

10 

.8 

8 

8 

11      ISf./i 

10 

.8 

8 

8 

11      1  8  '1.8 

10 

10 

.8 

8 

8 

n    ;  ytB.9 

11 

10 

.8 

8 
8 

8 
8 

11      !  S64.8 

18 

Ifl 

'     .8 

1<     1 

858.8 

JM 


Cook*»  Food  AUowanet 


400 


FOOD  ALLOWANCK 

DOGS 

DOGS 

MEN 

PEMMI. 

CAN 

!    DofCr-l 

Pkminirui 
BatioB 
lib. 

Pemmi- 

CBIflflB 

lib. 

Bation 

Live  Dog* 

Cm^ 

•mb.. 

Dmte 

Dop  died 

fM«M 

_     Tn»&l 

Left 

oa 

weight. 

WgL   Totol 

Wgt 

TotiU 

TotiU 

~       1  OlM 

Cod. 

fed     wgt.      fed 
to      fad.    k   to 

wgt.      wgt.  M 
ted.        to  8 

•uined 
Um. 

■Ma 
Um. 

CMh 

k»ch 

BMB. 

dog. 

Idog. 

TJT 

10                                               1.8 

8 

8               11 

8M.8 

14 

10                                               1.8 

8 

11 

881. 8 

15 

10                                               R.8 

8 

11 

880.8 

10 

10                                                .8 

8 

11 

888.8 

17 

10 

.8 

8 

n 

898.8 

18 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

887.8 

10 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

878.8 

•0 

10 

.8 

8 

U 

885.8 

<1 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

854.8 

n 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

848.8 

kS 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

888.8 

U 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

881.8 

ts 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

810.8 

se 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

198.8 

r 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

188.8 

?M 

10 

.8 

8 

11 

177.8 

ii 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

108.06 

.  ;  10                                1 

.75 

7.5 

8.M 

0.75 

158.80 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

148.85 

'  u* 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

188.80 

s 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

189.05 

s 

10 

75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

119.80 

4 

10 

75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

108.55 

s 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

90.80 

6 

10 

.75 

7.**          8.851 

9.75 

90.00 

7 

10 

.75 

7.W 

8.85 

9.75 

80.80 

8 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

70.5O 

» 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

80.80 

10 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

51.05 

11 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

41.80 

it 

10 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

81.55 

Seu'f  and  Bear*  an  aecurad.              j 

IS 

1 

.75 

7.5 

8.85 

9.75 

81.80 

•1 

507.1 

818. ool  Tfa.td 

i 


410 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Dueocered 


The  foregoing  bill  of  fare  shows  that  it  was  possible  to  feed 
both  men  and  dogs  84  days  at  the  daily  rations  indicated.  But 
this  is  not  the  whole  truth.  Two  and  one-half  pounds  of  fresh 
meat  is  used  as  a  daily  ration  for  a  dog.  This  is  a  double  ration. 
One  pound  or  one  and  one-fourth  pounds  would  have  been 
sufficient.*  The  average  weight  of  a  dog  carcass  is  estimated 
to  be  60  lbs.  only.  This  was  done  for  the  purpose  of  demon- 
strating that  even  at  that  low  erciraate,  it  was  sufficient.  A  fair 
estimate  would  have  been  90  to  05  lbs.  each.  Peary  says  his 
averaged  00  lbs.  Besides  this.  Cook  had  10  dogs  left  on  June 
IS,  when  he  foimd  seals  and  bears.  He  could  have  killed,  and 
would  have  killed,  some  of  them,  and  fed  them  to  others,  instead 
of  giving  them  pemmican  from  his  sled,  if  his  supplies  were  as 
low  as  shown  in  the  table. 

Thb  analysis  based  on  Cook's  own  statements  shows  be- 
yond contention  that  there  is  no  foundaticm  for  discrediting 
Cook  on  the  grounds  of  insufficient  food  supply. 

This  was  all  the  information  that  it  was  possible  for  Kennan 
to  have  had  before  him  when  he  wrote. 


*NuMD  allowied  1  lb. 


CHAPTER  IV 


PROF.  STOCKWELL'S  CRITICISMS 


There  still  remained  one  more  class  of  citizens  for  the 
conspirators  to  reach  in  order  to  make  their  plan  effectivre,  for 
disposing  of  Cook,  and  that  was  to  enlist  some  great,  sdentific 
mind  in  the  cause.  This  would  cap  the  climax,  and  silence 
contention.  But  what  scientist  could  be  engaged  who  had  the 
reputation,  the  scholarship,  the  distinction  to  create  the  im- 
pression needed,  whose  writings  would  attract  attention  the 
world  over?  Nature  provides  a  Napoleon  for  every  crisis. 
In  this  instance  the  pUce  was  filled  by  the  illustrious  Professor 
of  Astronomy  in  the  Cleveland  University.  What  such  a 
distinguished  author  would  write  need  not  be  confined  to  a 
monthly  magazine.  The  daily  press  were  only  too  glad  to  get 
it.  His  articles  appeared  simultaneously  throughout  the 
civilized  world.  It  was  the  master-stroke  of  a  masterful 
campaign.  His  articles  were  prefaced  by  the  following  com- 
ment:* 

"John  Nelson  StockweU.  A.  M.  Ph.  D.,  has  attracted 
world-wide  attention  as  the  author  of  scientific  i>apers  attacking 
the  nebular  hjrpothesis,  and  of  other  works  which  have  earned 
him  a  commanding  place  in  science. 

"Professor  StockweU,  in  preparing  the  paper  published 
l>eiow,  had  no  animus  other  than  to  apply  the  tests  of  the 
science  of  which  he  is  a  master  to  Dr.  Cook's  data.  ^ 

"  He  has  disr^arded,  for  the  main  piupose  of  his  argument, 
all  data  secured  by  the  use  of  instruments,  and  takes  only  the 
single  phvsical  fact— WHEN  DID  COOK  FIRST  SEE  THE 
MIDNIGHT  SUN? 

"Professor  StockweU  believes  that  Dr.  Cook  could  not  be 
mistaken  either  in  the  fact  of  seeing  the  sun  at  midnight,  or  in 

*Dai]jr  Pren,  June  1910. 

411 


■11 

il 

''4 

rll 

i 

11 


41S 


Hat  the  North  Pols  Been  Diaeovered 


\iu 


%n 


IS 


s  *;s 


"The  Midnight  Sun." 
the  day  of  the  month  he  saw  it.    If  he  did  not  see  the  sun  at 
midnidit  until  April  7,  1908,  then  the  astronomer  is  certain 
that  the  explorer's  calculations  as  to  his  whereabouts  must  be 
in  error  by  more  than  800  miles. " 

Here  is  Stockwell's  article  <m  the  Midnight  Sun. 

Discrepancy  of  816  Miles 

"When  a  man  announces  to  the  world  that  he  has  done 
some  great  thing,  it  is  the  province  and  duty  of  men  of  science 
to  apply  to  his  account  of  his  deed  all  the  tests  provided  by  the 
learning  of  mankind. 

"In  the  matter  of  the  North  Pole,  science  in  many  of  her 
departments  provides  such  tests.  Astronomy  is  a  branch  of 
science  that  of  right  must  be  permitted  to  apply  its  test  to  the 
data  furnished  by  Dr.  Cook,  Lieutenant  Peary  or  any  other 
man  who  may  claim  to  have  discovered  the  geographical  pde. 

"I  have  taken  the  best  information  I  could  secure  as  to  Dr. 
Cook's  data,  and  I  have  undertaken  an  analysis  of  what  his 
observations  really  show. 

"Anoratok  is  situated  in  78  degrees  87  minutes  of  north 
Utitude,  and  is,  therefore,  11  degrees  28  minutes  or  790  miles 
from  the  Ndrth  Pole.  The  sun  rose  at  this  place  February  19, 
1908,  after  having  been  below  its  horizon  during  116  days,  or 
smce  the  24th  of  the  preceding  October.  It  was  from  this  pla^-e 
that  Dr.  Cook  started  on  his  polar  expedition  at  sunrise  February 
19,  1908.  He  reports  that  on  March  80,  he  was  in  latitude  84 
degrees  47  minutes,  which  is  5  degrees  18  minutes,  or  862  miles 
from  the  Pole. 

"On  March  80,  at  midnight  the  sun's  declination  was  4 
degrees  0  minutes  from  the  equator,  and  if  to  this  we  add  35 
mmutes  for  refraction,  we  get  the  apparent  declination  of  the 
sun  equal  to  4  degrees  85  minutes  north,  and  its  distance  from 
the  Pole  would  be  85  degrees  25  minutes.  If  to  this  we  add 
Cook's  distance  from  the  pole,  or  5  degrees  18  minutes,  we  get 
90  degrees  88  minutes  for  the  zenith  distance  of  the  midnight 
sun  in  the  latitude  Cook  claimed  to  be  in  at  that  time  The 
midnight  sun  would,  therefore,  be  88  minutes  of  a  degree  below 
his  horizon,  and  would  of  course  be  invisible.  But  the  midnight 
sun  was  approaching  Cook's  horizon  at  the  rate  of  85  minutes 
daily,  and  consequently  must  have  reached  it  on  March  81, 
or  April  1  at  the  latest,  in  that  place. 


Prqf.  StoehceWs  Criiieunu 


413 


"But  Dr.  Cook  tells  us  that  the  right  of  April  7  was  made 
notable  by  the  swinging  of  the  midnight  sun  over  the  northern 
ice,  as  it  marked  the  beginning  of  the  six  months  of  simimer  at 
that  place.  Now  if  Cook  was  in  the  latitude  he  claims  to  have 
lieen  in,  HE  MUST  HAVE  HAD  A  MIDNIGHT  SUN  AS 
E  4RLY  AS  APRIL  1 .  But  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  Cook's 
statement  that  April  7  showed  him  his  first  midnight  sim,  and 
so  simple  an  observation  as  seeing  the  sun  itself  would  require 
neither  instruments  nor  skill  in  using  them,  and  could  as  well 
be  made  by  an  untutored  Eskimo  as  by  the  most  intelligent 
white  man.  Therefore,  we  will  accept  April  7  as  the  date  of 
COOK'S  FIRST  MIDNIGHT  SUN,  anr'  inquire  what  con- 
clusions may  be  legitimately  deduced  from  it. 

"On  April  7,  at  midnight,  the  sun's  declination  may  be 
taken  as  north  7  degrees  4  minutes,  and  to  this  must  tn;  added 
the  sun's  semi-diameter,  16  minutes,  and  refraction,  85  minutes, 
making  the  declination  7  degrees  55  minutes,  in  order  that  the 
whole  Sim  might  appear  above  the  horizon. 

"If,  then,  the  sun  was  in  the  horizon  of  some  place  at 
midnight,  the  place  must  be  as  far  from  the  pole  as  the  sun  was 
from  the  equator,  and  consequently  the  polar  distance  must  be 
equal  to  7  degrees  55  minutes,  or  its  latitude  must  be  82  degrees 
5  minutes.  Dr.  Cook  gives  his  latitude  at  the  same  time  as  86 
degrees  C8  minutes.  There  is,  therefore,  a  discrepancy  amount- 
ing to  4  degrees  8S  minutes  in  his  latitude  to  be  accounted  for  in 
some  way,  and  THIS  DISCREPANCY  IS  EQUIVALENT  TO 
A  LINEAR  DISTANCE  OF  816  MILES  in  the  place  of  the 
observer. 

"If  Dr.  Cook's  latitude  on  April  7  was  only  82  d^rees  5 
minutes,  he  was  then  550  miles  from  the  pole,  and  in  order  to 
reach  it  on  April  21,  he  must  liave  traveled  89  miles  daily. 

"In  his  joiuney  towards  the  pole  after  April  7,  nothing  is 
related  of  special  interest  except  the  extreme  precision  with 
which  he  gives  his  latitude  as  determined  by  his  sextant,  namely, 
89  degrees  59  minutes  46  seconds,  which  would  give  his  distance 
from  the  pole  equal  to  1400  feet,  or  only  80  feet  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  mile.  It  is  perhaps  superfluous  to  add  that  NO 
PORTABLE  TRANSIT  INSTRUMENT  or  sextant  would  be 
capable  of  giving  THAT  DEGREE  OF  PRECISION,  even 
by  a  long  series  of  observation. 

"In  conclusion,  it  appears  that  Dr.  Cook's  oba^vations 
show  that  he  was  really  550  miles  from  the  pole  when  he  clainoed 


414 


Has  the  North  Pols  Been  Discovered 


A 


to  have  been  only  234  miles  from  that  point.    His  observations, 
therefore,  show  a  discrepancy  of  816  miles. 

"The  conclusions  arrived  at  in  this  paper  are  based  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  newspaper  rep<Hts  giving  April  7  as 
the  date  of  midnight  sunrise  are  correct. " 

(Signed)    "John  N.  Stockweix." 


Did  Not  Have  a  Horizon 


I' 


IS 

J:  b 

u^^  n: 
^\4 


Prof.  Stockwell's  expose  would  probably  be  conclusive  if 
his  premises  were  somd.  The  premises  must  be  true  or  else 
logic  is  made  to  lie.  He  quotes  Cook  as  saying  "made  notable 
by  the  swinging  of  the  sun  over  the  northern  ice. "  This  is  not 
literally  but  substantially  a  correct  quotation.  But  Stockwell 
then  proceeds  with  his  computations  based  on  a  different  state 
of  facts;  viz.,  on  the  erroneous  theory,  that  on  April  7  the 
midnight  sun  swung  just  clear  of  the  "horizon."  But  this  is 
not  Cook's  statement;  it  is  not  the  above  quotation;  it  is  not 
Cook's  position.  Cook  took  notice,  and  entered  in  his  diary, 
that  on  that  day,  April  7,  the  sun  swimg  "over  the  northern  ice, " 
but  the  true  horivm  may  have  been  in  an  entirely  different 
place  from  the  sky  line  of  the  northern  ice. 

When  we  read  Cook's  narrative  where  he  describes  that 
day  (April  7)  in  detail,  he  makes  it  clear,  that  he  not  only  had 
no  intoition  of  assuming  that  the  midnight  sun  swung  just 
exactly  above  the  edge  of  the  horizon,  but  on  the  contrary  he 
makes  it  equally  clear  that  he  had  no  horizon  on  that  day  and 
none  for  several  days  prior  thereto.  He  says:  "The  night 
of  April  7  was  made  notable  by  the  swing  of  the  sun  at  midnight. 
For  a  number  of  nights  it  made  grim  faces  at  us  in  its  setting. 
A  teasing  mist,  drawn  as  a  curtain  over  the  northern  sea  at 
midnight  had  given  curious  advantage  for  celestial  staging; 
settling  into  this  haze,  toe  were  unable  to  determine  sharply  the 
advent  of  the  midnight  sun,  but  here  was  a  spectacular  play  which 
interested  us  immensely. " 

"Now,  the  great  bulk  was  drawn  out  egg-shaped,  with 
horizontal  lines  drawn  through  it.    Again,  it  was  pressed  into 


Prof.  StockweU's  Criticuma 


415 


a  basin  with  flaming  fires,  burning  behind  a  curtain  of  frosts; 
blue  at  other  times,  it  appeared  like  a  huge  vase,  and  it  required 
very  little  imagination  to  see  purple  and  violet  flowers. " 

Note  what  Cook  says  in  speaking  of  the  days  immediately 
previous  to  this  date  on  April  6  in  the  10th  installment,  2nd 
paragraph. 

"There  was  at  no  time  a  perfectly  clear  horizon,  but  the 
weather  was  good  enough  to  permit  frequent  nautical  observa- 
tions. "  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  Prof.  Stockwell  distorts 
Cook's  language,  and  distorts  his  meaning;  and  then,  with  this 
erroneous  premise,  proceeds  to  show  Cook  in  error  when  he  is 
himself  the  one  in  error- 
Anyone  who  has  taken  observations  knows  that  imder 
such  conditions,  as  Cook  describes,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
get  a  perfect  horizon.  But  Cook  does  not  say  he  had  a  horizon; 
on  the  contrary  he  says  that  there  was  no  horizon  sufficiently 
distinct  "to  determine  sharply  the  advent  of  the  midnight 
sun"— "There  was  at  no  time  a  perfectly  clear  horizon." 

Prof.  StockweU's  conclusions  can  be  of  no  more  value  than 
the  data  on  which  they  are  foimded,  which  as  shown,  are  clearly 
in  error.  Prof.  Stockwell  is  a  very  thorough  man  in  some  ways. 
Before  concluding  his  analysis,  he  says: 

Stockwbll's  DEacMPTiON  OF  A  Sextant 

"On  his  journey  to  the  Pole  after  April  7  nothing  is  related 
of  special  interest,  except  the  extreme  precision  with  which  he 
gives  his  latitude,  as  determined  by  his  sextant,  namely;  89 
degrees  59  minutes  46  seconds,  which  would  give  his  distance 
from  the  pole  equal  to  1440  feet,  or  only  80  feet  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  mile. 

"It  is  perhaps  superfluous  to  add  that  no  portable  tratuit 
instrument  or  sextant  would  be  capable  of  giving  that  degree  of 
precision,  even  by  a  long  series  of  observations. " 

It  certainly  is  not  only  superfluous  but  untrue  to  make 
such  a  statement.  Why  not  this  degree  of  precision?  Did  the 
distinguished  astronomer  ever  use  a  portable  sextant? 


#■ 


416 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacovered 


^n 


The  are  of  portable  sextants  is  divided  or  graduated,  into 
d^^rees  and  10  minutes;  and  has  a  vernier  graduated  into  10 
seconds.*  Observations  are  determined  by  the  vernier  to 
seconds.  When  the  observer  reads  his  altitude  from  his  sextant 
he  has  it  befwe  him  in  degrees,  minutes  and  to  10  seconds.  If 
the  navigator  is  at  sea,  far  from  land,  and  is  not  very  particular 
as  to  extreme  accuracy,  he  may  drop  the  seconds  when  making 
his  calculati<Mi3,  as  a  business  man  drops  fractions  when  making 
a  rough  estimate  of  any  problem.  But  if  he  is  close  to  shore, 
or  danger,  he  figures  every  second  accurately.  In  other  words, 
oxhausts  every  endeavor  to  obtain  his  exact  position. 

Cook  did  just  what  every  sensible  man  would  have  done. 
He  dropped  the  seconds  enroute  when  they  were  immaterial. 
But  when  he  reached  the  Pole,  the  vital  spot,  when  he  knew  he 
was  making  history,  that  posterity  would  expect  of  him  every 
possible  exertion  for  accuracy;  he  figured  m  every  second  from 
his  altitude,  and  from  a  number  of  obser\-ations,  in  order  to  do 
his  very  best.  This  is  what  Shackleton,  Amundsen  and  Scott 
did,  what  all  f  enuine  explorers  have  done,  and  what  Peary  says 
he  did. 

The  horizon  may  have  been  imperfect  and  irregular,  makkg 
the  altitude  incorrect;  his  observations  may  have  been  in- 
accurately taken;  his  computations  may  have  been  faulty. 
But  who,  except  Prof.  Stockwell,  will  say  that  "no  sextant 
would  be  capable  of  giving  that  degree  of  precision"  when  he 
should  know  that  most  sexta-nts  (if  not  every  sextant)  are  so 
capable.  Cook  describes  his  sextant  in  detail,  and  says  it  did 
give  that  very  precision. f 

This  article  by  Prof.  Stockwell  was  but  a  very  miW  trans- 
gression, compared  to  another  from  his  pen,  which  appeared 
in  the  New  York  Tiinea.t  December  5,  1909.  It  u  rather  long, 
rambling  and  pointless,  but  in  view  of  its  significance  otherwise 
it  is  quoted  in  full. 

*Bowditch  Epitome  26  Ed.    Page  1S3. 
tlW,  My  Attainmmt  qf  the  Pole. 

VTbeTime*  and  ita  syndicate  of  papers  are  the  vehicles  for  all  the  Peanr 
propagauda.  ' 


Proi.  SUxkweU's  CriHnama 
Cook  was  581  Miles  Shobt  of  the  Pole 


417 


"In  oitler  to  inteUigently  discuss  the  stories  of  travelers 
within  the  Arctic  Circle,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  know  the 
theoretical  physical  conditions  existing  there;  for  since  that 
part  of  the  world  is  so  seldom  visited,  we  cannot  well  depend 
upon  the  stories  of  subsequent  travelers  to  correct  the  errors 
of  their  predecessors.  The  credibility  of  each  traveler's  storv 
must  be  determined  by  a  comparison  of  the  observed  facts  with 
the  theoretical  conditions  known  to  exist;  and  must  stand  upon 
its  own  merits. 

"Obser\'ed  facts  are  not  fit  subjects  for  course  of  arbitra- 
tion ;  for  facta  are  facts  the  world  over  and  cannot  be  discredited 
for  the  accommodUition  of  rhetoric  -:jid  vivid  descripdons. 
Neither  are  they  subjects  for  ethical  consideration.  We  know 
that  if  the  centre  of  gravity  is  unsupported  the  victim  falls, 
whether  he  be  a  saint  or  simier;  and  justice  is  blind  and  pitiless 
as  gravitation.  It  is,  therefore,  venr  important  that  we  be  able 
to  immediately  submit  the  facts  of  nature,  as  collected  by  in- 
telligent travelers,  to  an  immediate  comparison  isath  the 
theoretical  conditions  previously  known  to  exist. 

"The  facts  of  nature  whether  theoretical  or  observed,  are 
always  consistent  with  themselves;  and  if  discrepancies  are 
found  to  exist,  they  must  be  made  to  disappear  either  by  new 
obfjervations,  or  by  corrected  interpretations  of  the  older  ones. 
This  can  always  be  done,  for  nature  is  always  in  harmony  with 
herself. 

"it  is,  therefore,  thought  best  to  give  a  brief  outline  of 
the  theoretical  conditions  which  exist  in  the  circumpolar  regions, 
for  this  information  is  not  to  be  found  in  ordinary  works  on 
popular  astronomy. 

Differences  at  Various  Latitudes 

"If  we  now  suppose  that  we  are  in  latitude  89  degrees,  our 
horizon  will  be  inckned  1  degree  to  the  hori«on  of  the  pole,  and 
1  degree  more  th«ai  half  of  the  universe  will  p«88  above  our 
horizon  each  day  of  84  hours.  The  son  will  b^in  to  rise  after 
the  long  night,  on  March  IS,  at  14.9  hours,  and  aftor  about  88 
hours  will  be  wholly  above  iJie  southern  horizon  at  noon.  On 
March  20,  at  16.4  hours,  it  ^  ill  have  reached  the  horison  of  the 
midnight  sun,  and  in  38  hours  more  will  be  wholly  above  it, 
and  the  long  polar  day  for  latitude  89  degrees  will  have  begun. 


^f^t 


m 


I 


ymm 


m-^* 


418 


HoM  1h»  North  Pole  Bern  Disooeered 


It  will  then  gradually  rise  higher  each  day  until  the  Summer 
solstice,  when  it  will  begin  to  decline  in  altitude  and  reach  the 
horizon  of  the  midnight  sun  on  September  2!^,  at  8.6  hours,  and 
the  horizon  of  the  midday  sun  on  September  98,  at  5.9  hours. 
The  long  polar  day  at  latitude  89  degrees  will  equal  185  days 
16.2  hours,  and  the  long  polar  night  will  e<|ual  169  days  9.0 
hours.  The  long  polar  night  in  latitude  89  degrees  is,  therefore 
16  days  7.2  hours  shorter  than  the  long  polar  day.* 

**  If  we  now  consider  the  physical  conditions  at  80  degrees 
of  latitude,  we  shall  find: 

"Sun's  upper  limb  disappears  in  midday  horizon  after  a 
long  day  Octolier  22,  at  2.1  hours,  and  reappears  ai  the  same 
point  on  February  21  at  1.9  hoiuv,  after  a  long  night  of  121 
days  and  28.8  hours.  The  midnight  sun  appears  in  the  north 
on  April  IS  at  4.6  hours,  and  disappears  at  the  same  place  <m 
August  29  at  18.0  hours,  after  having  been  above  the  horizon 
136  days  and  8.4  hours.  The  long  polar  wight  in  latitude  80 
degrees  i.s,  therefore,  16  days  8.6  hours  shorter  than  the  long 
polar  day. 

"At  70  degrees  of  latitude  the  sun's  upper  limb  disappears 
November  id  at  B.l  hours  and  reappears  at  tlie  same  place 
January  17  at  8.5  hours  after  a  long  night  of  51  days  20.5  hours. 
The  midnight  sun  appears  on  May  16  at  8.0  hours,  and  dis- 
appears at  the  same  place  July  27  at  6.7  hours,  after  a  long  day 
oi  72  days  2  7  hours.  The  long  night  in  70  degrees  of  latitude 
is,  therefoit;,  20  days  7.2  hours  shorter  than  the  long  polar  day. 

Cook's  Narrative  Dissected 

"At  latitude  67  degrees  SO  minutes,  which  if  very  near  the 
southern  limit  of  the  frigid  zone,  the  sun  disappears  below  the 
midday  horizon  on  «>ecember  17  at  4.7  hours,  and  reappears 
on  December  27  at  8.0  hours,  the  long  night  being  equal  to  10 
days  4.4  hours.  The  midnight  sim  appears  in  the  northern 
horizon  on  May  29  at  2.S  hours,  and  disappears  at  the  same 
place  July  14  at  5.4  hours,  having  been  above  the  horizon  46 
days  S.l  hours.  The  long  night  in  latitude  67  degrees  SO 
minutes  is,  therefore,  very  nearly  equal  to  36  days  shorter  than 
the  long  day. 

"We  see  from  this  general  exposition  of  the  physical  coO'- 
ditimis  existing  in  the  circumpolar  regions  that  the  long  ix>lar 

*TlieM  fisuraa  seem  to  make  the  year  ■hort  by  10  days.    185  dayv,  16.  f 
hn.  plua  108  days  9  hn.  equal  8M  dayi  1.S  hn. 


Pruf.  StocktPdTa  CrUieuma 


419 


day  increanea  In  length  a»  we  approach  the  Pole,  and  the  long 
|M)lar  ni^ht  diininisheii  in  length  as  we  approach  the  Arctic 
(  ircle.  We  also  notice  that  the  long  polar  night  in  all  placet 
is  sliorier  than  the  long  polar  day  at  the  same  place,  and  the 
(iifferent-e  in  length  l)etween  the  day  and  the  night  can  never  be 
less  than  sixteen  days.  »x     <-■     • . 

"We  are  now  prepared  to  intelligently  discuss  Dr.  Cook  s 
imrrative  concerning  his  dash  to  the  Pole;  and  the  first  point  for 
< onsideration  relates  to  his  point  of  departure.  Dr.  Cook  tells 
us  that  Annoatokis  within  700  miles  of  the  Pole;  and  we  have 
already  seen  that  one  degree  of  the  meridian  in  latitude  of  85 
d<  Krees  is  equal  to  69.891  miles.  Ten  degrees  of  the  meridian 
would,  therefore,  be  equal  to  698.91  miles;  and  since  this  is  less 
than  700  miles,  we  would  conclude  that  Annoatok  is  situated 
very  nearly  in  80  degree.s  of  latitude.  But  in  latitude  80  de- 
grees the  sun  sets  at  noon  on  Ottolier  22,  and  the  long  winter 
night  of  122  days  begins,  Dr.  Cook  ulso  tells  us  that  during 
the  last  days  of  brief  suiin'  ine  w  v.eat'her  cleared,  and  at  noon 
on  Octol)er  24  everybody  soup  .  irtedom  of  the  open  for  a  last 
glimpse  of  the  dying  day  i'heitj  was  a  charm  of  color  and 
glitter,  but  no  one  seemed  quite  happy  as  the  sim  sank  under 
the  southern  sky,  for  it  was  not  to  nse  again  for  118  days. 
Til  is  was  in  1907;  and  the  sun  next  rose  at  Annoatok  on  February 
19,  1908.  The  long  night  at  Anoratok  being  only  118  days, 
show.s  that  its  latitude  is  less  than  80  degrees,  for  we  have  al- 
ready seen  that  in  latitude  of  80  degrees  the  long  night  is  122 
(lays  in  length. 

Cook's  Abnormat.  Fioures 

"Dr.  Cook  further  says:  'At  Annoatok  the  midnight 
sun  is  first  sten  over  the  sea  horizon  on  April  23.  It  dips  in  the 
sea  on  August  19.  It  thus  encircles  the  horison,  giving  Summer 
and  continuous  days  for  118  days.  It  sets  at  midday  on  October 
24,  and  is  absent  a  period  of  prolonged  night,  corresponding  to 
the  day,  and  rises,  on  Febnwry  20.* 

"By  A  singular  and  significaxit  (-oin^'idence  the  long  night 
l)etween  October  24  and  Februarj'  20  smounts  to  118  days;  and 
the  long  night  at  Anoratok  is  just  » qua.'  to  the  long  day.  We 
have  already  seen  that  lynder  nonnaJ  <  <>r)ditiona  the  length  of 
a  long  night  at  any  point  of  tLc  frigid  /xmic  must  be  at  least  six- 
teen days  shorter  than  the  long  'i.ay.  D: .  Cook  must,  therefore, 
have  l)een  observing  under  alvormai  oouui'-ons  the  natu  \  of 
which  it  becomes  necessary  to  eiylaiu. 


420 


Ha$  ih$  North  Pole  Been  Diaeaeered 


Hi 


"Dr.  Cook  reports  that  the  long  day  at  Annoatok continues 
during  118  days,  a  long  day  of  that  length  within  the  Arctk 
Circle  correspondii  to  a  latitude  of  76  f'egrees  SO  minutes.  The 
beginning  of  that  day  ia  April  2S  and  the  end  ia  August  19. 
The  midnight  sun  riites  and  wXs  in  a  sea  horistHi;  and  conse- 
quently 8er\e8  to  determine  the  latitude  correctly.  At  the 
latitude  of  76  degrees  80  minutes  the  long  night  would  begin 
on  Noveml)er  1  and  end  on  February  19  and  nave  a  length  of 
101  days,  being  17  days  sliorter  than  the  long  day  in  that 
latitude.  The  observed  fact  that  the  long  night  at  Annoatok 
is  equal  to  the  long  day  at  the  same  place,  shows  that  the 
horizon  of  the  midday  sun  is  not  in  the  satne  plane  as  that  of  the 
midnight  sun. 

Cook  Wrong  Either  Way 

"The  southern  or  land  horizon  at  Annoatok  is,  therefore, 
elevated  by  more  than  S  degrees  above  the  sea  horizon,  and 
lengthens  the  long  night  at  the  place  by  17  days. 

"  Based  upon  these  statements  of  Dr.  Cook  which  are  con- 
sistent in  themselves,  we  must  conclude  that  his  place  of  de- 
parture, Annoatok,  is  in  latitude  76  degrees  SO  minutes  or  9S6.8 
miles  from  the  Pole.* 

"Accepting  this  determination  of  the  latitude  of  Annoatok, 
it  is  easy  by  means  of  the  map  of  his  route  as  published  in  The 
New  York  Heraid  of  October  1  to  very  approximately  estimate 
the  distance  to  be  traveled  in  order  to  reacn  the  Pole.  For  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  route  may  approximately  be  divided  into 
two  parts,  one  of  which  is  a  parallel  of  latitude  about  20  degrees 
in  length,  straight  west  from  Annoatok;  and  the  other,  an  arc 
of  a  meridian  IS  degrees  SO  minutes,  or  9S7  miles,  straight  to 
the  Pole. 

"Now  one  degree  of  longitude  in  latitude  70  degrees  SO 
minutes  is  equal  to  16.2  miles;  20  degrees  are,  therefore,  equal 
to  S24  miles,  and  if  to  this  we  add  the  meridian  distance  of  9S7 
miles,  we  get  the  whole  distance  to  the  Pole  equal  to  1,261 
miles.  This  is  the  least  possible  distance  to  the  pole  by  the 
route  followed;  and  if  to  this  we  add  10  percent,  to  allow  for 
zigzagging  or  sinuosities  of  the  various  courses,  the  actual 
distance  traveled  would  amount  to  1,S8€  miles.  Dr.  Cook 
gives  the  distance  traveled  as  follows: 

*In  Prof.  Stockwell't  article  on  Midnight  Sun  be  aaya  the  latitude  of 
Annoatok  is  78  degree*  S7  minutea.    See  page  41S. 


Prqf.  StoekweWt  Criiieum 


4S1 


98  dayi 
9  days 

S4  dayi 
1  day 

Total    68  days 


Total 


400  milea 

96  miles 

800  mile* 

9  miles 

805  miles 


"But  the  whole  interval  of  lime  between  February  10  and 
April  21  is  sixty-two  days,  and  the  whole  disUnce  traveled  is 
apparently  only  805  miles.  This  gives  a  daily  average  distance 
traveled  of  IS  mUes.  If  this  is  a  correct  estimate  of  the  dutance 
traveled  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  he  was  still  581  miles  from 
the  pole  on  April  SI. 

PHTBICAIi  CONBTAMTS  RbQUXBSD 

"Probably  one  of  the  most  important  concluumis  arrived 
at  in  this  paper  is  that  Annoatok  must  be  m  latitude  76  degrees 
80  minutes,  or  Dr.  Cook's  statements  concerning  sunrise?!,  sun- 
sets, length  of  lon^  day  and  length  of  long  night  are  each  and 
eveiy  one  of  them  mcorrect. 

"In  Older  to  proper'y  handle  the  problem  with  lacibty. 
various  physical  constantit  ure  supposed  to  be  known,  and 
among  those  of  general  ^piica  -ion  we  must  know  the  magmtude 
and  figure  of  the  earth,  the  horiwrntal  refraction  of  light,  and 
the  angular  diameter  of  the  sun.  As  the  last  two  maitioned 
are  subject  to  slight  variations  at  different  seasons  of  the  yw, 
we  need  dve  here  only  their  mean  or  average  vahies.  We, 
Uierefore,  mtve  for  some  of  these  constants: 

"The  equatorial  diameter  of  the  earth  is  7,9«5.6  miles, 
and  the  polar  diameter  is  7,889.1  miles.  The  average  length 
of  a  degree  of  the  meridian  is  60.048  miles,  while  the  actual 
length  of  a  d^ree  in  the  latitude  of  85  degrees  is  69.891  nules. 

"The  mean  horizontal  refracticm  has  been  found  by  as- 
tronomical observatitHis  to  be  equal  to  85  minutesof  a  degree, 
and  the  sun's  angular  diameter  is  8S  minutes.  The  effect  of 
refraction  is  to  elevate  a  celestial  object  and  midce  it  appear 
higher  than  it  really  is,  and  since  the  sun's  diameter  is  9i  mmutes, 
while  refraction  is  85  mmutes,  it  follows  that  the  sun  appears  to 
be  wholly  above  the  horix(Hi  wlwn  it  is  in  fact  wholly  below  it 

"The  upper  limb  of  the  sun  wUl,  therefore,  appear  in  the 
horizon  when  the  sun's  centre  is  51  minutes  below  it,  and  Uie 
effect  of  refracti<»i  and  semi-diameter  b  to  dimin^  the  breadth 


MIC«OCOI»Y   RESOLUTION   TEST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No   2) 


I^i2.8 

IIIIIM 

1^  1^ 

IIIM 

t  li° 

i  2.0 

1.8 


^     APPLIED  IfVMGE 


^■53   East   Mam   Street 

ochester,   Ne,   York        U609       USA 
^?16)   482  -  0300  -  Phone 
(716)   288  -  5989  -  Fa, 


I»p^ 


422 


Eas  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


,\m, 


!  If 


U  V  f 


of  the  frigid  zones  by  51  minutes  and  increase  the  breadth  of  the 
temperate  zones  by  the  same  quantity.  The  actual  polar 
circles  arc,  therefore,  in  the  latitude  of  67  degrees  24  minutes, 
instead  of  66  degrees  33  minutes. 

"The  refraction  of  light  causes  the  sun  to  be  visible  at  the 
Pole  about  three  days  longer  than  it  would  otherwise  be  in  the 
course  of  a  year,  but  the  effect  of  twilight  is  to  greatly  prolong 
the  light  of  day  after  the  going  dovm  of  the  sun.  It  is  found  by 
observations  that  some  portion  of  sunlight  remains  until  the 
siui  is  18  degrees  below  the  horizon.  At  the  North  Pole  the 
twilight  begins  about  January  28  and  increases  in  intensity 
until  the  sun  becomes  visible  on  March  18,  and  it  begins  again 
at  the  disappearance  of  the  sun  on  September  25,  and  continues 
with  lessening  intensity  mitil  about  November  12,  when  it 
wholly  disappears.  The  real  night  of  total  darkness,  so  far  as 
sunlight  is  concerned,  therefore,  commences  about  November 
12  and  continues  until  January  28,  a  period  of  light  and  twilight 
at  the  Pole  is,  therefore,  nearly  four  times  the  period  of  darkness. 

Length  of  Polar  Seasons 

"We  shall  now  consider  the  time  of  sunrise  at  different 
places  within  the  polar  circles  after  the  long  period  of  winter 
darkness.  Since  the  sun's  upper  limb  becomes  visible  when  the 
sun's  centre  is  51  minutes  below  the  horizon,  it  follows  that  it 
\^ould  be  visible  at  the  Pole  when  the  declination  of  the  sun's 
centre  was  51  minutes  south  of  the  equator. 

"The  horizon  of  the  Pole  being  parallel  to  the  equator  and 
to  all  circles  of  latitude,  the  earth's  rotation  produces  no  dis- 
placement; and  the  stars  of  one-half  of  the  universe  are  per- 
petually above  the  horizon,  while  those  of  the  other  half  are 
perpetually  below  it.  But  this  is  not  the  case  with  the  sun, 
moon  arid  planets.  These  bodies  are  continually  changing 
their  places  among  the  stars  and  passing  from  one  hemisphere 
into  the  other. 

"During  the  autumn  and  winter  the  .sim  is  visible  at  the 
North  Pole,  being  below  its  horizon,  but  in  the  year  1908  the 
sun's  northern  limb  reached  the  horizon  of  the  Pole  on  March 
18  at  3.6  hours  Washington  mean  time,  and  this  was  the  mo- 
n  ent  of  simrise  at  that  time  and  place  for  all  longitudes.  The 
sun  would  then  follow  the  horizon  to  the  westward,  gradually 
rising,  and  at  the  end  of  32.58  hours  would  be  wholly  above  it, 
arid  the  long  polar  day  would  have  begun. 


ProJ.  SiockweWs  Criticismt 


4«8 


"The  sun  would  then  continue  to  circle  around  the  pole 
each  day  of  24  hours,  rising  gradually  higher  each  day  until  tie 
Summer  solstice,  June  21,  when  its  altitude  would  not  very 
perceptibly  vary  for  several  days.  It  would  then  gradual^ 
approach  the  horizon  each  day  imtil  September  24,  at  22.2 
hours,  when  its  upper  or  Northern  limb  would  have  disappeared 
Ijelow  the  horizon  and  the  long  polar  night  would  equal  174 
days  11.2  hours.  The  long  polar  night  was  therefore  16  days 
7.2  hours  shorter  than  the  long  polar  day. " 

Latitude  of  Annoatok 

This  article  of  Stockwell's  has  the  technique  and  accoutre- 
ments of  a  scientific  treatise.  He  has  taken  us  around  the 
world,  through  the  world,  and  among  the  planets,  but  in  truth 
it  is  anything  but  a  scientific  document.  If  his  piupose  had 
been  to  enlighten,  he  could  have  furnished  a  valuable  contri- 
bution on  such  a  subject,  which  would  have  been  welcomed  by 
the  thoughtful  public.  Nothing  is  more  dangerous,  or  con- 
tributes more  to  an  evil  cause,  than  to  have  it  espoused  by 
great  minds,  ungovemed  by  integrity.  The  first  nine-tenths 
of  this  article,  y  hich  is  all  of  it,  except  the  last  division,  (under 
the  headline  "Cook  wrong  either  way")  is  devoted  to  explaining 
how,  and  why  he  gets  the  latitude  of  Annoatok  to  be  76  d^rees 
30  minutes.  Any  one  can  see  at  a  glance,  that  there  must  be 
some  ulterior  purpose,  in  consuming  so  much  space  to  obtain 
such  a  simple  result.  Stockwell  might  just  as  well  have  given 
his  views  on  the  Westminster  catechism,  or  the  five  points  of 
Calvin,  as  to  have  written  the  first  nine-tentus  of  this  article 
so  far  as  its  having  any  bearing  on  Cook's  position  on  the  Polar 
Sea. 

What  can  possibly  be  the  object  of  this  diverting  circum- 
locution, attempting  to  fix,  or  change  and  make  an  erroneous 
latitude  of  Annoatok,  which  latitude  is  plainly  shown  on  the 
maps.  What  difference  does  it  make  whether  Annoatok  is  in 
one  location  or  another?  The  Professor  might  just  as  well  have 
started  at  Gloucester,  Mass.,  Cook's  original  point  of  departure. 


*f 


4S4 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


'.h 


and  established  the  latitude  of  that  place,  as  to  start  at  Annoatok 
in  an  alleged  attempt  to  show  that  on  April  11,  Cook  was  not 
at  the  spot  on  the  Polar  Sea,  that  he  thought  he  was. 

Cook  says  on  March  18,  that  on  his  arrival  at  Svartevoeg, 
he  had  traveled  "about  400  miles"  since  leaving  Annoatok 
across  EUesmere  Land,  in  28  days.*  This  is  m  fact  the  actual 
distance  by  his  route,  as  near  as  it  can  be  measured  on  the  map. 
But  suppose  it  was  only  40  miles,  instead  of  400  that  he  had 
traveled  in  the  28  days?  What  difference  would  it  make? 
He  was  then,  on  March  18  at  a  fixed  and  known  location  on 
land ;  at  81  degrees  20  minutes  latitude,  520  miles  from  the  North 
Pole,  regardless  of  how  long,  or  how  far,  he  had  traveled  over 
land  to  get  there.  This  was  the  starting  point  from  land  for  the 
North  Pole,  as  Cape  Columbia  was  the  starting  pomt  from  land, 
for  Peaiy. 

Cook  then  says  tl  at  he  left  land,  at  this  fixed,  well  known 
point  (Svartevoeg)  on  the  north  end  of  Axel  Heiberg  Land,  on 
March  18,  1908,  for  the  North  Pole,  520  miles  distant,  that  on 
April  11,  he  was  at  87"  20'  and  on  April  21  he  was  at  the  Pole. 
What  more  solid  basis  does  a  scientist  want  than  that 
from  which  to  apply  his  analysis?  The  dates,  the  distances, 
the  pomt  of  departure,  and  the  a2stination  are  fixed.  This  is 
all  the  data  that  would  be  possible  for  any  one  to  give  to  the 
pubUc;  they  are  suflScient.  But  the  Professor  knows,  anybody 
can  know,  that  by  taking  these  truthful  data,  every  distance, 
every  date,  every  location  thereafter,  as  ascertained  by  Cook's 
observations,  checks  out  with  absolute  correctness  to  the  Pole. 
It  is  only  by  falsifying  data  that  any  different  results  can  be 
reached.  Hence  this  long  diverting  essay  leading  up  to  the 
fixing  of  the  latitude  of  Annoatok  in  Greenland. 

In  view  of  the  distinguished  source  of  this  information, 

Stockwell's  data  will,  at  the  risk  of  tediousness,  be  reviewed. 

He  takes  as  a  startmg  point  Annoatok  as  if  it  were  in  latitude 

76  degrees  80  minutes  north.    He  says  that  he  has  before  him 

map  of  Cook's  route  as  published  in  the  New  York  Herald 

'Diagrammatic  Chart  No.  IS,  page  384. 


Prof.  StocheeWa  CriHcianu 


4St5 


of  October  1 ,  1900.  This  route  is  "  about "  400  miles  long  from 
Annoatok,  Greenland,  across  Ellesmere  Land  to  Svartevoeg  on 
Heiberg  Land,  thence,  520  miles  more  over  the  Polar  Sea  to 
the  North  Pole  or  9<20  geographical  miles  for  the  entire  distance. 
Now  notice  the  inventive  skill  by  which  Prof.  Stockwell  stretches 
this  distance  into  1,386  milea,  wrongly  making  it  appear  that 
Cook  is  in  error. 

Stockwell  first  cimningly  lays  out  a  new  and  novel  route 
of  his  own,  running  straight  west  from  Annoatok,  20  degrees  of 
longitude.  Thence  he  turns  north  at  right  angles  direct  for 
the  Pole.  As  all  meridians  lead  to  the  Pole,  he  could  have  kept 
right  on  west  with  his  imaginary  route  lengthening  out  the 
westward  distance  to  any  number  of  miles  he  wished,  or  he 
could  have  taken  a  more  southerly  course  and  lengthened  out 
his  meridian,  but  such  a  route  as  he  describes  has  no  relation 
whatever  to  the  route  taken  by  Cook,  as  can  be  seen  by  Chart  1. 
Stockwell  says  "this  is  the  least  possible  dis*  uce  to  the  Pole 
by  the  route  followed"  (i.  e.  followed  by  Stockwell!  Cook  did 
not  go  that  way). 

Stockwell  has  still  another  imique  method  of  abnormally 
lengthening  the  distance.  He  converts  these  geographical 
miles  of  his  own  fictitious  route,  into  statute  miles,  which  adds 
practically  15  per  cent.  He  then  adds,  as  he  says,  "10  per  cent 
more  for  zigzagging,  and  sinuosities  of  the  various  courses," 
neither  of  which  additions  have  anything  to  do  with  the  distance 
between  the  two  points,  or  with  the  progress  made,  whichever 
route  is  considered.  But  he  has  a  purpose.  In  this  manner  he 
figures  up  a  distance  of  1,886  miles  between  Annoatok  and  the 
Pole.  With  this  fabricated  route,  and  padded  distance,  as  a 
basis,  he  then  compares  these  btatute  miles,  including  the  10 
per  cent  detours  with  the  geographiccd  miles  of  Cook.  He  does 
not  play  fair  in  this  comparison  and  convert  Cook's  geographical 
miles  into  statute  miles,  nor  add  anything  to  them,  for  detours. 
He  then  finds,  by  loading  the  dice  in  this  way,  of  course,  a  dis- 
crepancy of  581  miles  between  his  fictitious  distances,  and  those 
of  Cook.    The  ingenious  manner  in  which  he  accomplishes  this 


496 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


ill 


result,  and  manipulates  figures  to  get  the  numeral  62  (which 
happens  significantly  to  be  the  number  of  days  Cook  consumed 
between  Annoatok  and  the  Pole)  is  wellworUi  reading  a  second 
time. 

"But"  says  Prof.  Stockwell,  "the  whole  interval  of  time 
between  Februaiy  19  and  April  21  . ,  sixty-two  days,  and  the 
whole  distance  traveled  is  apparently  only  805  miles.  This 
gives  a  correct  estimate  of  the  distance  traveled,  it  would  seem 
to  follow  that  he  was  still  581  miles  from  the  Pole  on  April  21. " 

How  could  a  scientist  in  his  senses  write  such  a  bunghng 
paragraph  and  expect  it  to  pr  j  undetected?  It  will  be  noticed 
first,  that  even  Stockwell's  second  spurious  number  of  805  miles, 
is  not  1,386  miles,  and  it  carries  Cook  only  to  April  11,  Latitude 
87°  20'  not  April  21  and  to  the  Pole.  But  Stockwell  by  this 
indirecuon,  falsifies  the  date,  calling  it  April  21,  and  stretches 
the  distance  to  the  Pole,  ond  neither  date  nor  distance  is  correct. 

Now  next  observe,  how  he  gets  this  erroneous  date,  and 
th(:se  erroneous  miles.  How  he  dehberately  omits  the  dates 
in  his  table;  disarranges  the  chronological  order  of  the  entries; 
and  adds  to  the  miles  in  a  most  audacious  manner  to  accom- 
plish this  result.  In  order  to  make  this  clear,  let  us  get  the 
facts  before  us  just  as  Cook  wrote  them  and  just  as  Stcokwell 
had  them  before  him  whea  he  penned  the  foregoing  paragraph 
and  computed  the  table  which  he  has  made.  We  shall  first 
quote  all  that  Cook  had  then  written  in  presenting  the  facts  and 
figures  to  which  Stockwell  alludes. 

Cook  .says  (fifth  installment,  near  the  beginning)  under 
date  of  March  18,  when  he  had  reached  Svartevoeg  the  end  of 
his  land  journey: 

"There  remained  a  line  of  520  miles  of  unknowable  trouble 
to  be  overcome,  before  oui  goal  could  be  reached. " 
This  is  clear  enough.  He  makes  the  total  distance  from 
Annoatok  to  the  Pole  of  920  miles,  (400  +520)  by  the  route  he 
took.  (See  chart  15).  Again  he  says  (in  the  ninth  instalhnent 
nepr  the  beginning)  writing  on  March  29,  eleven  days  later: 


£. 


Prof.  StockwelVa   Criticianu 


4S7 


"Camping  at  midnight,  we  had  only  made  nine  miles  for  a 
day's  effort." 

This  is  clearly  a  record  of  that  one  day  only. 

In  the  tenth  installment  near  the  beginning  under  date  of 
April  8,  nine  days  later,  he  makes  further  remarks  about  his 
progress  in  these  nine  days.     He  says: 

"Observations  on  April  8  placed  the  camp  at  latitude  86 
degrees  36  minutes,  longitude  94  degrees  9,  minutes.  In  spite 
of  what  seemed  Hke  long  marches,  we  had  only  advanced  ninety- 
six  miles  in  nine  days. "  This  is  plainly  giving  a  record  of  the 
preceding  nine  days. 

Later  on,  in  the  same  installment,  on  April  11,  (three  days 
later)  he  says: 

"The  obsen'ations  of  April  11  gave  latitude  87  degrees  20 
minutes,  longitude  95  degrees  19  minutes. " 

He  then  sums  up  the  joiumey  from  land  over  sea  to  that 
spot  by  saying: 

"We  had  dragged  ourselves  300  miles  over  the  Polar  Sea 
in  twenty-four  days.  Including  delays  and  detours,  this  gave 
an  average  of  nearly  13  miles  daily,  on  an  air  line  in  our  course. 
There  remained  an  imknown  line  of  160  miles  before  our  am- 
bition could  be  satisfied.  The  same  average  advance  which  we 
had  made  ou  the  pack  would  take  us  to  the  Pole  in  thirteen  days.' ' 

This  is  a  clear  statement  of  the  situation  as  it  existed  at 
that  point,  latitude  87°  20',  on  April  11.  It  gives  the  total 
distance  traveled  "over  the  Polar  Sea"  as  300  miles.* 

The  foregoing  are  Cook's  various  statements,  giving  all  the 
dates  and  miles  that  Stockwell  had  before  him,  when  he  compiled 
his  bogus  table.  To  make  this  still  clearer,  I  have  tabulated 
the  foregoing  statemmts  of  Cook  in  chronological  order,  and 
'^ave  followed  it  with  Stockwell's  garbled  table,  that  they  may 
be  checked  and  Stockwell's  skill  be  more  graphically  displayed. 

*He  should  have  aaid  S60,  but  we  must  use  the  figures  300  as  Stockwell 
used  them. 


428 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeovered 


See  Diacrmmimitic  Chart  No.  1«  (and  the  Table  below).  Showiac  Cook'i 
•tatementi  m  dates  and  miles  regarding  his  Progress  from  Annoatdk.  to  87*  v.o 
(February  19  to  April  11). 


Annoatok 

1908 
February 

19 

CO 

iil 

tt 

ts 

M 

W 

M 

tr 

» 

M 

March 

1 

S 
4 

—28  days ''       liies. 

« 

e 

7 

8 

• 

10 

11 

It 

18 

14 

15 

16 

SI"  20'  Svartevoeg 

17 

18) 

19    —8  days  60  miles 

20  J 

21—1  day  29  mUes 

22' 

28 

24 

>— 24day8  800miles 

25 

No  remarics  about 

26 

this  interval. 

27 

28j 

29—1  day  9  miles 

801 

81/                                    j 

f:.: 
_  ■  1 

in 


Prof.   StoelnoeWa  Critieianu 


429 


April) 


87*  20'  Polar  Sea 


10 


— 9  dajn  M  miles 


-8  days  50  miles 


STOCKWELL'S  GABBLED  TABLE  EXAMINED. 

Purporting  to  be  a  tabulated  record  <rf  the  SUtemenU  of  Cook  as  heroB- 
before  quoted.     (See  page  420.) 


28  days 

400  miles 

9  days 

96  miles 

24  days 

800  miles 

Iday 

9miles 

Total 

««daya 

805  miles 

i      r    *  item  bracketed  on  the  right  margin  of  the  chrono- 
log!  ,  and  the  first  item  in  Stockwell's  table,  "88  days, 

400  ii.  ,  ire  the  same.  It  is  from  Februaiy  19  to  March  18 
(the  latter  date  is  the  date  of  entry  in  Cook's  diary).  It  includes 
all  the  time  consumed  and  all  the  miles  covered,  in  traveling 
from  Annoatok,  Greenland  across  EllesmereLand,  to  Svartevoeg, 
on  Heiberg  Land.  The  latter  place  was  his  point  of  departure 
from  land  over  the  ice  to  the  Pole,  580  miles  distant  from  Svarte- 
voeg. 

Now  take  the  second  item  on  the  right  margin  of  the 
chronological  table  which  includes  the  last  date,  April  11,  "84 
days  300  miles."  This  entry  includes  in  bracket  all  the  days 
of  travel  over  sea,  from  March  18  to  April  11.  It  inchides  the 
"96"  and  "9"  miles  which  Stockwell  wrongly  adds  to  it.    It 


430 


H<u  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


i'Hf 


8ih 


■'r    t:.  •* 


f  SV 


also  includes  the  "9"  days  and  "1"  day  which  Stockwell  also 
wrongly  adds,  evidently  to  get  the  numeral  he  .i  after,  "62" 
days. 

In  this  skillful  manner,  by  omitting  the  dates  in  his  table, 
disarranging  the  chronological  order  of  the  entries,  and  inserting 
the  24  days,  300  miles  (which  if  they  had  all  been  correctly 
entered  would  have  exposed  him)  he  very  ingeniously  gets  the 
sham  numeral  of  "62"  days  (the  exact  time  from  Annoatokto 
the  Pole).  When,  in  fact.  Cook  had  only  then  traveled  52 
days  (February  19  to  April  11)  and  stated  that  it  would  require 
(at  his  average  speed  to  that  point)  "  thirteen  more  days  to  reach 
the  Pole."    It  actually  did  afterwards  take  10  days. 

In  this  way  Stockwell  gets  the  meaningless  805  miles  in  his 
table  which  stand  opposite  these  purloined  "62"  days;  which 
numbers  include  both  days  and  miles  as  above  explained  that  are 
added  twice;  he  then  represents  in  the  bungling  paragraph  above 
noted,  that  these  fictitious  805  miles,  thus  produced  are  the 
distance  that  Cook  claims  to  have  traveled  from  "Annoatok 
to  the  Pole, "  not  to  87*  20'  as  the  record  shows.  He  does  this  in 
face  of  the  fact  that  Cook  gave  the  latitude  he  was  in,  as  87"  20', 
and  said  he  had  160  miles  more  to  go  before  reaching  the  Pole.* 

Then  Stockwell  jumbles  matters  again  by  saying,  "That 
as  Cook  claimed  to  have  reached  the  Pole  in  62  days  from  Annoa- 
tok, and  as  the  distance  was  some  1,386  miles,  he  must  have  been 
681  miles  this  side  of  the  Pole  on  April  21"  But  this  was  not 
April  21,  it  was  April  11.  And  Cook  said  it  would  probably 
take  13  more  days  to  reach  the  Pole.     And  this  is  science! 

This  is  probably  what  Stockwell  had  in  mind  when  he 
wrote  in  the  first  part  of  the  article  "facts  are  facts  the  world 
over,  and  cannot  be  discredited  for  the  accommodation  of 
rhetoric  or  vivid  description.  We  know  that  if  the  centre  of 
gravity  is  unsupported,  the  victim  falls,  whether  he  be  Saint 
or  Sinner,  and  justice  is  blind  and  pitiless  as  gravitation." 

Wlien  one  realizes  the  turpitude  that  must  underlie  such 
work,  he  feels  like  declaring  that: 

*Se3  Chart  U. 


Prof.   StockweWa  Critieianu 


431 


"Monsters  in  their  prime 

That  tare  each  other  in  their  slime 

Were  mellow  music  matched  with  this. " 

A  juggler  could  hardly  be  more  dexterous  in  obtaining  the 
figure'  "62"  than  has  been  this  eminent  scholar.  Those  bogus 
figures  (62)  so  manipulated  in  Stockwell's  table  have  no  more 
to  do  in  that  form  with  the  time  that  Cook  consumed  in  travel- 
ing from  Annoatok  to  the  Pole,  than  they  have  wih  the  days 
he  c<»isumed  in  preparing  his  fiir  clothing  and  sleds  tot  the 
journey  during  the  previous  winter.  Consequently,  the  mean- 
ingless "805  miles"  derived  from  these  juggled  "62  days"  am 
with  just  as  much  sense  be  compared  to  the  miles  it  took  Cook 
to  travel  from  Gloucester,  Mass.,  to  Annoatok,  as  to  apply 
them  in  the  humbug  manner  adopted  by  Stockwell. 

Stockwell  does  the  same  thing  with  the  miles.  On  April  11, 
Cook  says  "We  had  traveled  800  miles*  in  24  days"  t.  e.  from 
March  18,  the  day  he  left  land,  to  April  11,  the  day  he  wrote. 
He  had,  of  course,  before  entering  this  stretch  of  S60  miles 
(correct  number)  over  the  sea,  traveled  400  miles  in  28  days,  as 
shown,  in  crossing  Ellesmere  Land  from  Annoatok  to  Svartevo^. 
These  two  make  760  miles.  And  this  760  miles  was  every  mile 
he  had  traveled  up  to  April  11,  the  day  he  wrote,  when  he  was, 
in  latitude  87"  20',  and  he  had  been  out  52  days— February  19 
to  April  11.  Pnrf.  Stockwell  knew  this;  any  child  can  under- 
stand it.  He  knew  that  any  other  figures  or  arrangement  of 
figures  were  misleading  and  counterfeit. 

These  discrepancies  cannot  be  said  to  be  unintentional, 
for  the  Professor  adopts  similar  tactics  in  his  midnight  sun 
article.  In  that  case  he  also  skillfully  and  artfully  gets  Cook 
into  the  wrong  place,  by  scientific  analysis.  He  takes  "the 
latitude  of  Annoafak"  in  that  case  as  his  basis  upon  which  to 
form  conclusions  the  ^me  as  he  does  in  this  later  case.  But,  for 
that  pilrpose  he  said,  that  "Annoatok  is  situated  in  latitude  78 
degrees  37  minutes  north. "  lie  now  says,  for  the  latter  piurpose, 
that  it  is  76  degrees  30  minutes  north.    Under  his  first  hypotHe- 

*Should  be|MO  miles. 


48« 


Hat  the  North  Pols  Btm  Dueomtd 


tf 


BIS  Annoatok  would,  therefore,  be  11  degrees  and  2S  minutea 
or  700  miles  from  thr  North  Pole.       (He  now  makes  it  9S7 
miles).    Why  all  this  faulty  manipulation  to  obtain  the  "lati- 
tude of  Annoatok"  when  the  maps  have  it  correctly,  78*  S7'?. 
It  is  wholly  immaterial. 

We  have  seen  already  what  an  expert  Prof.  Stockwell  is  in 
figures,  when  he  gets  right  down  to  scientific  work.  Probably 
no  one  else  will  review  Stockwell's  essay  to  see  i'  he  is  correct 
in  figuring  from  his  selected  data,  in  placing  Annoatok  erroneous- 
ly in  latitude  76*  SO'.  Because  the  question  arises — what  of 
it?  Was  not  Annoatok  in  the  same  latitude,  when  used  as  datum 
in  figuring  on  the  "midnight  sun"  on  April  7,as  it  is  in  this 
instance  only  4  days  later,  or  April  11?  Why  76*  SO*  now,  and 
78"  37'  then?  Whichever  latitude  was  used  as  datum  in  one 
case,  shoidd  be  used  in  the  other.  But  in  either  case  this 
latitude  is  immaterial.  Its  use  only  aids  in  creating  confusion. 
Look  at  it  another  way. 

Prof.  Stockwell  places  himself  in  a  vety  ludicrous  position. 
He  makes  Cook's  travels  up  to  April  11  in  his  table  as  805  miles. 
This  is  45  more  than  Cook  claims  (760).  If,  therefore,  we 
should  accept  Stockwell's  fancifiil  figures  on  this  point  as  true, 
and  then  correct  all  his  other  errors,  it  would  locate  Cook  on 
April  21  (the  day  he  says  he  reached  the  Pole)  45  miles  beyond 
the  Pole;  instead  of  281  short,  and  as  aU  directions  are  south 
from  the  Pole,  he  would  have  traveled  to  the  Pole  and  have  been 
back  to  the  same  latitude  again,  87*  20',  or  within  115  miles 
of  it.  If  we  should  use  Stockwell's  figures  in  another  paragraph, 
1 ,386  miles,  he  would  have  been  back  to  Svartevoeg. 

Prof.  Stockwell  is  surely  leading  us  into  the  higher  mathe- 
matics. Occupying  more  time  to  refute  other  matters  in  the 
Professor's  article  will  not  be  warranted  as  it  is  already  sufficient- 
ly discredited,  and  is  unworthy  of  further  consideration.  The 
Ticts  and  fallacies  may  be  simimarized  in  a  paragraph. 

On  April  11  Cook  was  at  S7»  SO'.  He  had  traveled  28 
days  over  land  from  Annoatok  to  Svartevoeg  or  to  81*  20',  and 
then  24  more  days  over  sea,  from  Svartevoeg  to  87*  20'.     The 


:   (■•■       ; 


Prqf.  StoehoM't  CrUicum 


48S 


total  time,  therefore,  over  land  and  over  sea  was  59  daya.  It 
was  not  68.  The  84  days  over  sea  was  84.  It  was  not  84 
plus  0  pliis  1,  because  the  9  and  1  are  included  in  the  84.  It  was 
April  11  not  April  81.  It  was  at  87*  SO',  not  at  90*  00'.  the 
Pole.  He  was  just  where  he  thought  he  was,  just  where  he 
knew  he  was,  just  where  he  said  he  was.  at  87*  SO'.  He  was  not 
581  miles  out  of  the  way.  nor  any  fraction  of  581  miles  out  of 
the  way.  He  was  not  805  miles  from  Annoatok,  but  700.  It 
was  not  1,886  to  the  Pole,  but  980.  Stockwell's  article  was 
published  to  show  to  the  world  that  somebody  is  a  falsifier. 
Who  is  ii?  I  have  not  had  the  pleasure  of  reading  the  Pro- 
fessor's book  on  the  Neb^Ufjr  Hypothesis.  It  must  be  good 
for  we  can  see  that  he  is  strong  in  hypothesis.  If  the  Professes 
could  get  a  patent  on  his  invention,  he  would  have  a  handy 
formula  for  disproving  the  location  of  any  spot  on  the  ^lobe  or 
any  planet  in  the  universe. 

There  is  not  (me  syllable  in  George  Kennan's  two  artides  in 
the  Ouilook  that  convicts  Cook  of  any  wrong.  There  is  not  one 
syllable  in  Prof.  Stockwell's  two  articles  that  convicts  Cook 
of  any  wrong.  The  integrity  of  Cook's  narrative  emerges  fn>m 
this  ordeal  untouched.  The  onslaught  strmgthens  it.  Stcck- 
well  evidently  was  engaged  by  some  one  to  write  the»  U<  les. 
Had  he  been  loyal  to  science,  he  would  have  ii.vestigt  .j-  1  and 
analyzed  Cook's  observations  and  statements  and  teported  his 
findings.  Had  he  done  this,  he  would,  almost  'T^^tantly,  have 
discovered  the  mistakes  in  figures  .  Cook's  iiurative,  and 
he  could  have  made  9uch  conunents  and  criticisms  as  his  talents 
dictated.  But  it  is  quite  evident  that  he  thought  there  were 
no  mistakes  and  instead  of  searching  for  them,  he  concluded  to 
invent  them.  The  consequence  is  that  instead  of  convicting 
Cook,  he  has  convicted  Stocktoelll 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  METROPOLITAN— KARL  DECKER'S  TIRADE 


K  ■■ 


I  HAVE  now  reviewed  all  the  articles  that  have  been  pub- 
lished that  have  come  to  my  attention,  that  make  any  attempt 
at  argument  or  reasoning  to  show  that  Cook  did  not  reach  the 
North  Pole.  Thousands  of  pages  of  scurrilous  screeds  have 
appeared  giving  vent  to  the  various  writer's  opinions  and  pre- 
judices, but  none  that  I  have  seen  have  made  any  attempt  to 
offer  actual  proofs  or  give  valid  reasons  indicating  that  Cook 
did  not  reach  the  North  Pole. 

It  may  perhaps  be  well  before  concluding  this  section  of  my 
review  to  allude  to  one  of  the  most  notable  of  these  personal 
tirades  against  Cook.  I  allude  to  an  article  that  appeared  in 
the  Metropolitan  of  January  1913  over  the  signature  of  Karl 
Decker.  I  referred  to  this  article  among  others  without  identi- 
fying it,  on  the  second  page  of  the  Foreword  as  one  of  the 
effusicms  that  I  would  pass  unnoticed.  I  have  since  concluded 
to  briefly  refer  to  it.  The  article  is  entitled  Dr.  Frederick  A. 
Cook— Faker.  The  title  is  printed  in  large  letters  across  the 
outside  front  cover.  The  tone,  the  tenor,  the  bitterness  of  this 
rancorous  diatribe,  makes  it  appear  to  me  very  like  the  ravings 
of  a  paranoiac.  Scarcely  a  paragraph  is  exempt  from  this 
appearance. 

The  article  reviews  the  Mt.  McKinley  matter,  the  midnight 
sun,  the  impossibility  of  getting  latitude  down  to  minutes,  to 
Cook's  inadequate  food  supply,  to  the  Loose  and  Dunkle 
episode,  to  the  Eskimo  testimony,  and  other  matters.  The 
writer  obviously  had  before  him  as  his  texts,  the  false  con- 
clusions of  other  writers. 


484 


I  i 


The  Metropoliian — Karl  Decker's  Tirade  4S5 

He  evidently  exercised  no  thought  himself,  but  simply 
accepted  these  false  premises  and  applied  his  epithets  thereto. 
I  have  abeady  reviewed  as  many  of  the  subjects  to  which  he 
refers  as  is  pertinent  to  the  purposes  of  this  work.  I  can  see 
no  useful  purpose  in  reviewing  in  much  detail  this  intemperate 
screed.  The  writer  is  evidently  a  trained  reportorial  arUst. 
He  evidently  desired  to  add  something  to  the  subjects  which  he 
reviews  which  did  not  occiu*  to  the  minds  of  either  Stockwell, 
Kennan  or  the  others  who  preceded  and  furnished  him  with 
these  opinions.  I  will,  therefore,  hastily  call  attention  to  a  few 
paragraphs  that  indicate  in  a  measure  the  general  drift  of  them 
aU. 

Those  which  I  shall  consider  do  not  disclose  the  tenor  of 
the  article  itself,  but  they  give  some  shght  idea  of  its  reckless, 
abandoned  nature,  which  is  all  I  care  to  show.  On  page  428 
appears  the  following  paragraph,  referring  to  Cook's  audacious 
presumption  in  assuming  to  be  able  to  get  his  longitude  as  far 
north  as  SO"  46'  6".    It  reads: 

"Cook  will  have  to  give  a  convincing  explanation  of  that 
marvelous  feat  m  taking  observations.  Peary  and  Shackleton 
ceased  giving  longitude  several  degrees  from  the  Poles  they  were 
approaching,  beaiuse  ii  became  apparent  that  the  finest  in- 
struments ever  made,  stationed  in  a  permanent  observatory 
would  not  give  longitude  in  d^rees,  much  less  in  minutes  near 
the  Poles." 

This,  of  course,  is  reckless  abandon.  But  as  it  is  so  easily 
proven  false,  it  is  in  the  circumstances  astoimding.  Shackleton 
not  only  did  not  cease  to  give  "longitude  several  degrees  from 
the  Pole, "  but  he  continued  to  give  them  as  far  south  as  he  went, 
and  finally  records  that  he  went  to  Latitude  88"  88'  Ix>ngitude 
162"  east.*  Peaiy  did  not  "ceaae"  and  could  not  very  well 
cease  to  give  k>ngitude  becaiise  he  did  not  begin  to  give  them 
until  (so  his  story  reads)  he  had  reached  the  North  Pole,  or 
within  8  miles  of  it.  This  exactly  reverses  Decker's  reckless 
assertion. 

*Pa8e  849,  Heart  of  tbe  AnUretic. 


436 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diecovered 


The  last  par^raph  in  the  same  column  in  Decker's  article 
continuing  on  this  subject  of  observations  reads  as  follows:— 

"This  is  important  in  showing  that  Cook  did  not  reach  the 
North  Pole,  and  that  he  did  not  get  north  of  latitude  85'  when 
he  would  have  learned  by  actual  experience  the  impossibility 
of  calculatmg  longitude  in  high  latitudes.  That  he  gives  his 
ongitude  in  minutes  at  latitude  89°  46'  5"  a  short  distance  from 
he  Pole,  is  in  itself  all  the  proof  one  needs  that  his  whole  story 
s  a  fake. " 

This  paragraph  takes  Stockwell's  false  position  as  its  cue. 
If  Decker's  assertion  is  truth,  it  certainly  would  by  its  very 
nature  condemn  all  that  Cook  has  written.  But  suppose 
Decker's  assertion  is  itself  untrue  that  his  premises  are  false, 
then  by  his  own  logic,  it  must  show  that  his  (Decker's)  assertion 
is  in  itself  all  the  proof  one  needs  that  his  whole  story  is  false. 
It  has  been  conclusively  shown  by  abundant  evidence  in  Chapter 
IV  that  there  is  not  and  cannot  be  a  word  of  truth  in  this 
allegation  of  Decker's.* 

One  would  have  supposed  that  this  skillful  writer  would  at 
least  have  had  the  foresight  to  have  seen  that  he  was  proving  too 
much.  These  learned  conclusions  of  Decker's  if  they  were 
true  would  not  only  prove  Cook  to  be  a  "faker, "  as  he  asserts, 
but  they  would  also  prove  his  friend  Peary  to  be  a  falsifier;  and 
they  unfortunately  would  also  put  Scott  and  Amundsen  in  the 
same  class;  for  they  all  give  longitudes  of  the  nearest  point 
they  reached  to  either  the  South  or  North  Pole,  and  they  all, 
including  Peary,  give  them  not  only  in  degrees,  but  astonishing 
as  it  may  appear  from  Decker's  reckless  statement,  in  minutet 
and  seconds. 

If  Decker  had  imparted  some  of  his  astounding  wisdom  to 
Peaiy,  Tittman,  Mitchell,  and  Duval  when  they  were  fabricat- 
ing their  plotting  of  Peary's  route  and  offering  it  in  their  testi- 
mony at  Washington,  perhaps  they  would  not  have  given 

*Mi.  W.  J.  ArmbnMter  answered  Decker's  article  in  the  mirror  (St.  Louia) 
»t  the  time  it  appeared  in  the  Metropolitan  and  he  oonclu8ivfc.y  showed  that  a 
person  could  atand  at  the  very  pin  point  of  the  North  Pole,  and  lay  out  all  the 
menduuu  of  longitude  with  li  inches  and  less  of  ^  Pole. 


The  Metropolitan — Karl  Decker's  Tirade  437 


Peary's  latitude*  at  89"  55'  «3"  Lonjptude  137  west,  and  perhaps 
Peary  would  have  changed  the  wording  in  his  bookf  and  not 
have  said  on  April  7  that  his  observations  showed  that  he  was 
then  on  the  Behring  Strait  meridian  (170°)  west  4  or  5  miles 
from  the  Pole. 

All  of  Decker's  pretensions  to  argument  are  of  a  similar 
abandoned  nature  to  these  to  which  I  have  referred.  I  will, 
however,  mostly  to  amuse,  because  it  is  evidently  given  only  to 
prejudice  the  reader,  refer  to  a  picture  that  appears  on  page  435 
entitled  "  An  Object  Lesson  in  Polar  Equipmmt. "  The  picture 
shows  Cook's  sledge  above  two  of  Peary's  sledges.  Under  the 
picture  is  this  description. 

"The  topmost  of  these  three  sledges  is  the  one  on  which 
Cook  claims  to  have  traveled  one  thousand  miles  to  and  from 
the  Pole.  The  middle  one  is  an  every  day  Arctic  sledge,  uid 
the  lowest  one  is  the  sledge  christened  "Morris  K.  Jessup"  on 
which  Peary  made  his  final  dash  to  the  Pole.  Contrast  the 
flims^'  character  of  Cook's  sledge  with  the  solid,  clipper  built 
sledge  of  Peary's. " 

As  I  have  already  gone  over  the  merits  of  these  various 
sledges  in  Chapter  IV,  I  will  simi-ly  say  that  I  allude  to  this 
picture  only  to  show  the  general  nature  and  purport  of  the 
article  itself.  Anyone  who  wishes  to  know  about  these  "solid, 
clipper  built  sledges"  should  read  Borup's  book  A  Tenderfoot 

vnth  Peary. 

This  article  is  of  the  same  nature  and  character  (only  more 
vicious  and  contemptible)  as  are  all  the  articles  that  I  uave  seen 
that  attempt  to  discredit  Cook. 

The  alleged  Eskimo  testimony  of  Peary,  the  Stockwell, 
Kennan  an  1  Decker  articles,  are  the  only  articles  that  1  know  of 
that  make  any  pretension  of  reasoning.  They  are  the  very 
best  (in  argument)  that  have  been  written,  if  there  can  be  such 
a  thing  as  best,  among  the  wholly  bad. 

Bearing  false  witness  is  the  basest  of  crimes.    Othello 
and  Roderigo  were  indeed  murderers,  but  with  some  redeeming 

*Page  1S6  Testimony  at  Washington. 

\Ftige  990  NorA  Pott. 


4S8 


Eaa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


qualities.  But  the  memoiy  of  lago  guilUess  of  blood,  yet  a 
bearer  of  false  tales  is  abhorrent.  We  may  forget  perhaps  the 
names  of  the  actual  participants  in  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus; 
but  Judas,  who  knew  him  to  be  innocent,  yet  betrayed  him,  is' 
remembered  as  the  most  execrated  of  mankind. 

"Art,   Thou   hast  many   infamies 

But  not  an  infamy  like  this." 
So  strong  is  truth,  that  cunning,  falsehood  and  trickery  cannot 
fltimd  against  an  acknowledged  fact.  Nature  has  ordained 
nghtfuUy.  that  were  aU  the  literature  of  civiHzation  subsidized 
to  espouse  an  unholy  cause;  and  were  it  backed  by  t'  e  wealth 
and  power  of  all  the  world;  yet  one  solitary,  naked  fact,  es- 
tabhshed  by  the  accepted  rules  of  evidence,  wiU  stand  against 
them  all. 


i*. 


M 


CHAPTER  VI 


CONGRESSMAN  tt^LGESEN'S  SPEECH 


m 


One  more  critic  of  Dr.  Cook's  claim  has  recently  appeared 
above  the  horizon,  and  perhaps  the  most  important.  Cooks' 
case  cannot  be  completely  presented  if  I  omit  a  review  of  this 
critic.  I  delay  the  publicatiOi\  of  this  work  to  include  tb*s 
chapter. 

"  DR.  COOK  and  the  NORTH  POLE. " 

Under  the  above  heading  in  the  Congressional  Record  of 
December  21, 1916,  page  70S  appears  the 

"Ejibeamcaa.  ci  Reuarks 

of 
Hod.  Henry  T.  Helgeaen 

of 
North  Dakota 


In  the  House  ot  Rq>resentatives 
Monday,  September  4, 1916. " 

These  remarlcs  piuport  to  be  an  analysis  of  Dr.  Cook's 
writings.  They  extend  over  128^^  of  the  broad  pages  of  the 
Congressional  Record  and  indude  more  than  40  criticisms  of 
different  statements  made  by  Dr.  Cook.  These  "remarks" 
therefore  constitute,  in  volume,  a  fair  sized  book.  Th^  should, 
if  convenient,  be  first  read  by  every  one  who  may  care  to  read 
this  chapt»,  because  I  have  not  space  remaining  to  review  all 
the  items  of  criticism  in  such  a  volume.  But  it  is  important 
that  a  student  of  the  problem  should  read  them  all. 

4S9 


440 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


■A  •  - 


This  speech,  (I  call  it  a  speech,  though  never  spoken) 
bears  abundant  evidence  of  the  intelligent  and  painstaking 
research  made  by  this  distinguished  Congressman  from  North 
Dakota.  He  has  evidently  studied,  scanned  and  scrutinized, 
with  close  attention,  probably  every  sentence  and  every  word 
that  Cook  has  written  in  recent  years,  ir  a  zealous  endeavor  to 
bring  to  light  every  feature  which  appears  in  Helgesen's  con- 
struction to  be  inimical  to  the  truthfulness  of  Cook's  utterances. 

He  has  also  compared  and  checked  Dr.  Cook's  statements 
with  the  writings  of  others  with  remarkable  comprehensiveness. 
I  therefore  must  conclude  that  if  it  be  possible  to  find  anything 
in  Cook's  writings  that  is  evidence  that  he  did  not  go  to  the 
Pole  that  Mr.  Helgesen  has  ioxaid  it.  On  the  contraiy,  if 
Helgesen  has  failed  to  find  any  evidence,  it  would  seem  almost 
useless  /or  any  person  of  ordinary  ability  to  attempt  it. 

Mr.  Helgesen  approaches  the  subject  on  a  different  an^'e 
from  any  of  the  other  critics  whom  I  have  moitioned.  He  does 
not  invent  nor  manufacture  his  data  wholesale.  He  selects 
them  mainly  from  Cook's  book  My  attainment  of  ike  Pole.    But 

1  think  his  conclusions  from  his  premises  will  bear  investigation. 

The  object  of  Mr.  Helgesen's  speech  is  to  discredit  the 
veracity  and  the  integrity  of  Dr.  Cook,  establish  the  unreli- 
ability of  his  narratives,  and  by  this  method  so  smirch  his 
reputation  for  truthfulness  and  accuracy  that  his  claim  of  the 
discovery  of  the  North  Pole  will  not  be  believed. 

He  prefaces  his  remarks  by  certifying  to  his  own  honesty 
and  integrity  of  purpose,  and  to  the  sincerity  and  purity  of 
his  motives,  in  the  following  manner  on  page  703  columns  1  and 

2  of  the  Congressional  Record  of  December  21,  1916.  (When 
ever  I  refer  to  this  speech  by  page  hereafter,  it  will  mean  from 
this  issue  of  the  Record). 

"I  have  contended  and  still  contend  that  every  American 
is  entitled  to  a  fair  trial  before  judgment  is  rendered.  Even  a 
criminal,  caught  in  the  act  of  committing  a  crime,  is  given  a 
trial  before  sentence  is  passed  upon  him.  My  contention  in 
this  respect  has  caused  a  general  belief  that  I  am,  and  have 
been,  a  champion  of  Dr.  Cook's  claim  to  the  discovery  of  the 


Congretaman  Helgeaen'a  Speech 


441 


North  Pole.  I  have  repeatedly  stated  that  I  am  not  a  defender 
of  Cook's  claims,  but  I  am  a  champion  of  fair  play,  and  even  if 
Cook  is  a  fraud  he  is  still  entitled  to  a  hearing. " 

"I  have  defended  Cok  only  against  unfounded  charges, 
for  I  firmly  believe  that  no  man  was  ever  more  ill-trebted  and 
maligned  than  Dr.  Cook  has  been  by  his  opponents  in  the  polar 
controversy;  however,  such  defense  as  I  have  made  has  been 
only  a  fight  for  American  justice. " 


"I  approached  this  task  with  an  unbiased,  impn^judiced 
mental  attitude,  and  my  conclusions  are  not  favorable  to  r*r. 
Cook's  claims." 


"In  this  analysis  I  ask  only  pertinent  questions,  that  are 
answered  in  the  pages  of  Cook's  own  book,  and  I  take  no  unfair 
advantage  of  self-evident  typographical  errors  to  discredit  him 
on  statements  which  would  otherwise  be  acceptable. " 

"In  the  course  I  have  pursued  I  am  actuated  only  by  a 
desire  for  truth  and  acciuracy. " 

This  is  surely  a  lofty  minded,  altruist  x-,  commendable 
position  to  assume. 

For  simplicity  and  convenience,  I  will  call  this  Mr.  Helge- 
sen's  position  No.  1.  I  do  this  becau.^  to  my  mind,  he  presents 
himself  to  his  readers  in  a  dual  character;  and  further  because 
I  think  the  readers  of  this  chapter  may  be  able  to  judge  for 
themselves  as  to  the  fidelity  and  steadiness  of  purpose  with 
whict  Mr.  Helgesen  upholds  in  his  criticisms,  the  banner  which 
represents  and  symbolizes  this  position  No.  1. 

Mr.  Helgesen 's  previous  endeavors  in  Congress  as  is  indi- 
cated in  this  quotation  have  naturally  caused  this  "general 
belief"  (whether  properly  or  not)  and  have  classed  him  as  amcmg 
the  friends  of  Dr.  Cook. 

I  will  therefore  quote  what  he  says  on  page  703  column  1 : 

"We  all  remember  that  almost  immediately  after  Cook's 
eturn  from  the  North,  when  public  sentiment  h  jth  for  and 
against  him  ran  high,  he  suddenly  disappeared  for   bout  a  year. 


i 


442 


Baa  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


At  that  time  the  charge  was  made  by  his  opponents  that  he  went 
away  to  avoid  a  further  investigation  into  his  claims.  In  1913, 
when  matters  looked  as  though  a  hearing  might  be  granted  him, 
he  decided  on  an  eight  months'  tour  around  the  world,  though 
I  happen  to  know  that  those  persons  who  had  his  interests  at 
heart  remonstrated  with  him  against  such  a  course.  The 
present  year,  on  the  more  or  less  plausible  excuse  of  a  Chautau- 
qua lecture  tour,  he  went  to  the  West,  at  a  time  when,  with 
a  little  extra  effort  on  his  part,  his  friends  hoped  to  secure  for 
him  the  hearing  which  he  has  so  long  professed  to  desire.  These 
actions  may  possibly  be  reasonably  explained,  nevertheless 
they  lend  color  to  the  theory  that  Cook  does  not  desire  a  bona 
fide  hearing  and  investigation. " 

This  quotation  appears  to  be  an  alien  intrusion  (imder  the 
title  given  to  the  speech)  and  not  pertinent  to  the  subject  under 
consideration  and  inunaterial.  It  has  no  bearing  that  I  can 
see  on  the  issue  involved.  It  seems  to  be  introduced  for  no 
other  purpose  than  to  show  the  ingratitude  of  Dr.  Cook  for  the 
services  of  his  friends  in  his  behalf.  Possibly  Mr.  Helgesen 
and  others  have  just  cause  to  be  o£Fended  with  Dr.  Cook  m 
consequence  of  this  ingratitude,  or  for  other  reasons.  Anyway 
this  quotation  is  Mr.  Helgesen's  comment  on  the  subject  and 
I  asstmie  it  to  indicate  a  provocation  for  his  present  attitude. 
I  base  this  assumption  on,  and  because  of  the  fact  that  it  checks 
and  coincides  perfectly  with  every  complaint  in  the  9S}^  pages 
of  this  speech.  Tt  refore,  for  convenience  in  reference,  I  will 
call  this  second  expression  an  indication  of  his  position  No.  2. 

Position  No.  2  is  adhered  to  throughout  the  speech.  Posi- 
tion No.  1  is  abandoned  after  its  recital.  Its  flag  is  immediately 
hauled  down,  and  the  black  flag  of  position  No.  2,  with  its  skull 
and  crossbones  spread  across  its  folds,  is  run  to  the  mast  head, 
to  remain  undisturbed  to  the  end  of  the  last  sentence  of  the 
speech. 

I  will  now  outline  my  own  position  that  there  may  be  no 
misconception. 

In  my  attempt  to  ascertain  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Peaiy's 
claim  to  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole,  I  took  the  position, 
broadly  and  unequivocally,  as  shown  on  pages  860  and  S61, 


Congreasman  Hdgeten'a  Speech 


MS 


that  even  though  Peary  should  be  known  to  be  the  veriest  of 
falsifiers;  this  known  truth  (except  as  collateral  or  as  corrobora- 
tive to  other  positive  evidence)  should  have  no  influence  or 
bearing  whatever,  in  an  attempt  to  ascertain  the  truth  as  to 
whether  or  not  he  reached  the  Pole.  I  have,  on  other  pages, 
cited  several  instances  to  prove  the  soundness  of  this  position 
and  to  show  that  it  ia  groiuided  on  correct  and  just  principles. 
On  pages  S89  and  S90 1  referred  to  the  cases  of  John  Cabot, 
Walter  Wellman  and  Peary.    In  regard  to  Peary  I  said : 

"It  seems  to  be  proven  that  Peary  did  not  go  to  the  Pole. 
He  did  not  go  to  87°  6'  or  discover  Crocker  Land,  or  Cape  Thos. 
Hubbard,  or  Cape  Jesaup,  or  Peary  Channel.  If  these  be  un- 
truths, they  may  smirch  Peary's  reputation,  but  they  cannot 
annul  other  trutha." 

"The  fact  ia  eternal  that  Peary's  aohievementa  in  former 
yeara,  especially  in  northern  Greenland,  in  daring  and  brilliance 
are  unexceeded  in  Arctic  hiatory. " 

When  later  I  decided  to  review  Peary's  claim  to  87*  6'  in 
19U6,  I  re-emphasized  this  position  in  the  following  language 
on  page  258. 

"  It  is  not  my  piupose  to  attempt  to  expose  the  fallacy  of  the 
claim  to  87"  6'  and  then  apply  the  rule  'false  in  one,  false  in 
all,'  because  the  rule  is  not  applicable  to  analyna.  The  North 
Pole  claim  ahould  reat  on  its  own  merits. " 

Mr.  Helgesen,  when  discussing  principles,  appears  to  hold 
similar  views.  On  page  702,  colunm  1,  before  quoted,  he  says: 
_  "Even  a  criminal,  caught  in  the  act  of  committing  a  crime 
is  given  a  trial  before  sentence  ia  paased  upon  him. " 

A  known  criminal,  therefore,  of  a  multitude  of  crimes, 
charged  with  a  sijecific  crime,  must  be  acquitted  if  he  be  found 
innocent  of  tJiat  specific  crime.  This  is  not  condoning  crime. 
It  is  upholding  justice.  Therefore,  if  Mr.  Helgesen  shoiild 
prove  Cook  to  be  an  inacciu^te,  unreliable  narrator  who  con- 
tradicts himself  repeatedly,  such  proof  should  have  no  bearing 
whatever  by  itself  alone,  ccmsidered  as  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
his  claim  of  discovery  of  the  Pole.  The  proof  must  show  the 
falsity  of  the  specific  claim,  otherwise  the  truth  remains  im- 
known.    This  is  my  position  in  regard  to  Peary.    It  is  my 


4' 


• 


il 


.•?i 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcocered 


pouti<m  in  regard  to  Cook,  and  it  wUl  be  my  position  in  Kgan 
to  Mr.  Helgeien. 

Mr.  Helgesen  may  avenge  himaelf  for  the  ingratitude  o 
Cook  by  exposing  him  if  he  can  to  the  world  as  an  untruthfu 
and  unreliable  narrator  of  events  if  he  so  chooses.  But  h 
cannot  evolve  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Cook's  claim  of  the  dis 
covery  of  the  Pole  by  this  method  alone.  He  certainly  canno 
do  so  and  be  true  to  position  No.  1.  Such  a  course  would  onlj 
make  Mr.  Helgesen  appear  guilty  of  the  very  things  he  charge 
against  Dr.  Cook.  He  cannot  proceed  in  this  manner  unde; 
the  civilized  code  of  morals  and  escape  the  charge  of  hypocrisy 
a  baser  moral  crime  than  maccuracy  or  untruthfulness. 

I  refer  to  Mr.  Helgesen's  assumption  of  this  dual  charactei 
in  advance,  although  to  be  consistent  I  must  admit  that  th< 
motives  or  personal  reasons  one  may  have  for  the  stand  h( 
takes,  makes  little  difference  in  the  force  of  his  argument 
Even  if  it  be  revenge,  vindictiveness,  or  spitefubess  thai 
prompts  him  to  action.  It  is  (after  all  has  been  said)  only  th< 
character  of  his  evidence,  the  soundness  of  his  argument  thai 
counts,  and  which  must  be  weighed  regardless  of  the  prompting 
motive  behind. 

Mr.  Helgesen  concludes  from  the  contradictory  nature  ol 
many  of  Cook's  statements  '.  Mr.  Helgesen  construes  them] 
that  they  prove  Cook  did  not  go  to  the  Pole. 

He  says  (on  page  722)  after  a  series  of  comments  on  th« 
variation  of  the  compass  that: 

y^^  '^*'  '"  conjunction  with  Cook's  doctored  latitude 
IS  mfficuffU  proo/ that  he  never  attained  the  'Boreal  center'  as  ht 
calls  the  geographic  point  known  as  the  North  Pole. " 

This  "suflScient  proof"  about  the  variation  will  be  shown 
to  be  no  proof  tven  as  to  the  variation. 

His  last  sentence  in  the  speech  is  the  inquiry: 

"Is  it  possible  for  any  one  who  gives  this  matter  any 
thought  or  studj'  at  all,  to  believe  that  Dr.  Cook  ever  attained 
or  remotely  approached  the  North  Pole?" 

Having  indicated  my  own  theories  and  purposes  and  the 
apparent  theories,  purposes  and  conclusions  of  Mr.  Helgesen, 


Congreuman  Helgeten't  Speech 


440 


I  will  further  say,  that  the  fact  is,  that  he  proceeds  with  hia 
criticisms  and  continues  them  to  the  end,  on  the  erroneous 
heory  that  "False  in  one  is  false  in  all."  Such  a  theory  is 
a  false  theory.  It  does  not  apply  to  any  sane  person.  His 
purpose  throughout  is  to  show  the  inaccuracy  and  unreliability 
of  Cook's  writings  in  every  locality  where  he  travels  in  the  North 
from  1907  to  1909.  I  must  antagonize  this  procedure  from 
the  start,  otherwise  it  will  be  useless  to  go  further. 

Let  us  get  our  bearings  at  once.  To  prove  that  Cook  writes 
inaccurately  has  no  more  bearing  on  the  question  of  his  claim  to 
the  discovery  of  the  Pole  than  it  would  be  to  prove  that  he 
gambles,  dissipates  or  mistreats  his  family.  All  these  may  be 
proper  criticisms  enough  in  the  proper  place;  but  proof  of  the 
falsity  of  the  master  claim,  the  claim  of  the  discovery,  must 
he  first  shown  before  such  matters  can  be  used  in  this  argument. 
Helgesen  does  not  show  this  falsity  to  be  proven  anywhere  hi 
his  speech. 

The  only  purpose  I  have  in  making  this  review  is  to  prove 
my  contention  as  to  his  purpose,  his  methods  of  accomplishing 
that  purpose,  and  to  show  that  he  does  not  furnish  a  scrap  of 
evidence  to  prove  that  Cook  did  not  reach  the  Pole,  and  to  show 
these  facts  by  quoting  a  su£Scient  number  of  his  criticisms  for 
the  purpose.  I  will  not  be  diverted  from  this  plain  issue  to 
consider  a  false  issue  set  up  by  Mr.  Helgesen  of  Cook's  in- 
accuracy, imtruthfulness  or  his  morals,  at  least  only  so  far  as  it 
appears  necessary  to  accomplish  the  purpose  I  have  named.  I 
want  to  know  and  show  my  retiders  whether  Mr.  Helgesen 
furnishes  evidence  that  proves  that  Cook  did  not  reach  the 
Pole.     That  is  the  only  issue  I  care  to  meet. 

I  will,  before  proceeding  with  this  review,  take  the  positive 
stand,  which  I  hope,  as  far  as  I  go,  to  prove  that  in  the  28^ 
pages  of  Mr.  Helgesen's  speech  he  does  not  refer  to  a  sentence 
in  Cook's  writings  that  is  proof  to  sustain  Lis  conclusion  that 
Cook  did  not  attain  the  Pole;  or  a  sentence  that  is  incontittent 
with  Cook's  attainment  of  the  Pole;  or  a  sentence  that  is  even 
shown  to  be  written  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  anyone  to 


'  *.:•  '- 


M 


440 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


believe  that  he  reached  the  Pole.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
will  be  no  disguiaing  the  fact  that  the  entire  speech  is  un- 
mistakably a  voigeful  attack  on  the  personal  integrity  of  Dr. 
Cook  for  the  personal  gratification  of  Mr.  Helgesen,  using  his 
exalted  position  and  his  privileges  in  that  position  to  diseminate 
his  influence  over  the  world. 

With  this  statement  I  might,  with  propriety,  terminate  this 
review  and  await  events;  for  if  my  conclusions,  as  stated,  are 
correct,  there  is  nothing  pertinent  to  review.  But  with  equal 
propriety  I  may  take  up  some  of  the  most  salient  features  of 
this  speech  for  the  purpose  of  emphasizing  the  nature  of  the 
criticisms  and  the  correctness  of  the  stand  I  take. 

I  do  not  know  that  Cook  reached  the  Pole.  I  would  like 
to  know.  It  is  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  my  researches  to 
know.  Mr.  Helgesen  does  not  know.  He  cannot  know. 
Nobody  except  Dr.  Cook  and  perhaps  his  two  Eskimos  do  know. 
And  nobody  can  ever  know  until  some  one  else  goes  there,  un- 
less some  evidence  can  be  foimd  in  Cook's  narratives  that  wiU 
of  itself  prove  the  contention  against  him. 

Peary  convicts  himself  many  times  by  his  own  hand. 
But  no  one  to  this  hour,  as  far  as  I  can  read,  has  ever  been  able 
to  point  to  a  sentence  in  any  of  Cook's  writings  that  bears  the 
least  semblance  of  proof  that  he  did  not  reach  the  Pole. 

Mr.  Helgesen,  on  pttge  703,  column  2,  speaking  of  Cook, 
makes  the  remark  that 

"He"  (Cook)  "truly  says  (p.  4)"  (quoUng  from  Cook's 
"My  Attainment  of  the  Pole") 

"Few  men  in  all  history,  I  am  inclined  to  believe,  have 
ever  been  made  the  subject  of  such  vicious  attacks,  of  such 
malevolent  assailing  of  character,  of  such  a  series  of  perjured 
and  forged  charges,  of  such  a  wide-spread  and  relentless  press 
persecution    as    I!" 

Then  says  Mr.  Helgesen: 

"Feeling  the  force  and  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  I  have 
hesitated  to  add  anything  to  the  load  of  criticism  that  has  been 
heaped  up<m  a  man  who  has  been  treated  with  great  injustice. 
However,  the  ends  of  justice  are  not  served  by  evadmg  the 


tk 


■■  f  ^ 


[  -, 


Congretsman  Helgeten't  Spetek 


447 


truth,  and  an  itnperaonal  analysis  of  Cook's  narrative  cannot 
injure  an  honest  man." 

This  is  supplemental  to  the  certificate  that  establishes 
position  No.  1.  But  I  recall  not  one  expressimi  in  this  long 
speech  that  attests  the  sincerity  of  this  sentiment,  or  that 
sustains  his  claim  to  "  impersonal  analysis. " 

I  will  now  proceed  in  a  necessarily  brief,  cursory  review  <rf 
some  of  Mr.  Helgesen's  criticisms. 

He  commences  them,  at  the  outset  of  Cook's  voyage, 
starting  at  Gloucester,  Mass.,  fw)m  which  port  Cook  took  hia 
departure  for  the  North  on  July  8,  1907  in  the  yacht  John  R. 

Bradley. 

On  page  704,  column  1,  he  places  in  parallel  columns  the 
descriptions  of  events  and  preparations  at  Gloucester,  as  made 
by  Dr.  Cook  in  his  writings,  and  as  made  by  Mr.  Bradley  in  an 
article  in  the  Independent  for  September  16,  1909. 

I  see  no  essential  or  unnatural  difference  in  the  two  de- 
8cripti<ms.  But  let  us,  at  the  start,  face  this  matter  squarely 
and  assume  that  the  imaginary  difference  does  exist,  which  BIr. 
Helgesen  strains  so  hard  to  show.  Is  it  proof?  Is  it  even  evi- 
dence that  Cook  did  not  start  on  his  voyage  froaa  Gk>ucester? 
Or  start  in  the  yacht  John  R.  Bradley?  Or  on  the  definite 
date  mentioned  by  Cook  of  "July  S,  1907,"  or  on  the  in  -finite 
date  "In  the  spring  of  1907"  mentioned  by  Bradley?  If  it  is 
not  proof  of  these  facts,  is  it  not  far-fetehed  evidence  to  prove 
that  Cook  did  not  go  to  the  North  Pole  a  year  after?  If  it  is 
not  evidence  on  this  latter  point,  then  what  is  the  purpose  of 
its  introduction  under  the  title  of  this  speech?  Can  such  a 
procedure  be  called  "impersonal  analysis  actuated  only  by  a 
desire  for  truth  and  accuracy"  of  a  claim  of  the  discovery  of 
the  North  Pole?  I  dwell  this  mu^h  at  the  beginning  of  this 
review,  over  this  tri^^al  matter,  because  this  criticism  is  a  fair 
representative  of  the  character  of  every  criticism  made  by  Mr. 
Helgesen  in  the  entire  speech  of  isy^  paff  ».  w'^^^'  ^^w  exceptions 
which  will  be  noticed.  Yet  this  puerile  criticism  occupies, 
including  Mr.  Helgesen's  comments  upon  it,  neariy  one  whole 


448 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


H\ 


M 


page  of  the  Congressional  Record.  All  of  Mr.  Helgesen's 
criticisms  are  as  unimportant,  as  immaterial  as  evidence,  as 
frivolous,  trivial  and  as  silly  as  this  one  to  which  I  have  referred. 
It  seems  inconceivable  that  a  Congressman  of  distinction  can 
think  it  his  duty  to  the  public  to  promulgate  such  thoughts. 

Another  comparison  of  writmgs  is  made,  also  in  parallel 
columns,  of  the  doings  and  events  at  the  next  port,Annoatok, 
Greenland,  where  Cook  and  Rudolf  Francke  spent  a  winter 
preparing  for  the  trip  to  the  Pole.  All  of  the  criticisms  applying 
to  this  winter's  sojourr  are  too  flimsy,  or  I  may  properly  say 
too  nonsensical  even  to  be  considered  here.  It  is  not  until 
Cook  starts  on  his  journey  across  El'esmere  Land  that  a  criti- 
cism is  made  that  is  important  enough  to  notice. 

Francke  has  recently  wrtten  a  book  in  the  German  Ipjiguage, 
which  in  Enghsh  translation  is  entitled  "A  German's  Ex- 
periences in  the  Far  North."  I  do  not  know  that  any  English 
translation  of  the  book  is  published.  Helgesen  compares  some 
of  Francke's  descriptions  of  events  at  Annoatok  with  those  of 
Cook,  and  in  every  instance  where  Helgesen  can  construe  a 
difference,  he  concludes  that  Cook  is  wrong,  without  the 
slightest  attempt  to  furnish  evidence  to  sustain  either  his  con- 
struction or  his  conclusion. 

For  instance,  on  page  706,  Cook  is  quoted  as  sa^nng  that 

the  sun  rose,  and  that  he  started  on  his  long  journey  on  February 

19,    1908.    Francke    (if    interpreted,    translated    and  quoted 

correctly)  in  his  description  of  the  event,  indicates  indirectly 

but  quite  clearly  in  two  plac3s  that  the  sun  rose  on  February  26, 

1908.     in  consequence  of  this  apparent  discrepancy  in  dates, 

Helgesen  shows  up  Cook's  utter  unreliability  as  a  narrator,  by 

being  "six  days  in  error"  at  the  very  start  of  his  journey. 

Not  a  scrap  of  collateral  evidence  is  offered  to  show  that  Cook 

is  the  one  in  error.    It  being  about  the  sun,  it  is  a  matter  easily 

proven  if  imtrue,  provided  one  felt  honor  bound  to  make  good 

his  insinuations.    But  Helgesen  evidently  felt  a  little  shame  over 

this  exhibit,  for  he  soon  abandons  the  use  of  it  in  his  calculations 

and  says  (page  706): 


Congressman  HelgeaerCa  Speech 


440 


"At  present,  in  order  to  follow  Cook's  narrative  closely, 
we  shall  adopt  the  date  he  gives,  February  19,  1908. " 

It  is  known,  or  may  be  known,  that  the  sun  did  rise  at 
Annoatok  on  February  19,  1908,  the  date  that  Cook  says  it 
did.  I  have  shown  on  another  page  that  Prof.  Stockwell  says 
that  the  sun  rose  at  that  place  on  that  date,  "February  19." 
Consequently,  Francke,  if  translated  and  quoted  correctly,  is 
the  one  in  error. 

Is  this  system  of  "impersonal  analysis"  based  on  the  self- 
assumed  position  No.  1?    Or  is  it  the  corsair  position  No.  2? 

Helgesen  has  dug  deep  into  Cook's  doings  and  writings,  but 
he  has  never  exposed  Cook  as  having  resorted  to  tricks  of  this 
character  to  injure  anyone. 

If  this  is  not  actually  manufacturing  false  evidence,  it 
is  equally  discreditable  in  morals;  and  when  resorted  to  by  one 
who  sets  up  his  standard  as  outlined  by  himself  in  position  No. 
1,  who  professes  that  he  is  "actuated  only  by  a  desire  for  truth 
and  accuracy, "  it  descends  to  the  level  of  hypocrisy  as  I  view 
it.  There  might  be  some  excuse  or  extenuation  if  Helgesen  was 
in  Cook's  place,  and  was  doing  this  in  desperation  to  protect 
himself  from  such  unrighteous  assaults;  but  when  the  only 
motive  is  to  convict  one,  who  for  all  he  knows  is  innocent,  the 
tactics  to  say  the  least  are  reprehensible.  If  Helgesen  is  guilty 
of  inaccuracy  and  wilfulness  in  construing  evidence  in  this 
instance,  then,  according  to  his  own  rule  of  "false  in  one,  false 
in  all"  he  is  self-condemned  in  all  that  he  may  hereafter  say  as 
tmbelievable. 

He  next  makes  great  ado  over  the  fact  that  Cook  in  choosing 
his  companions  for  the  dash  on  the  Polar  Sea  selected  two  yoimg 
Eskimos  instead  of  selecting  Francke  as  one  of  those  companions. 
He  compares  Cook's  action  with  that  of  Peary  in  his  treatment 
of  Bartlett.  I  will  review  this  contention  of  Mr.  Helgesen  at 
some  length  because  he  harps  on  it  seven  different  times  in  the 
course  of  his  speech.  He  apparently  exhausts  his  indignati<m 
in  one  attack,  then  takes  up  a  different  subject  while  gathering 
strength  for  another  assault.    Then  he  comes  back  to  the  sub- 


m 


f.if4* 


450 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


ject  again  with  renewed  vigor.  He  does  this  seven  times; 
sometimes  twice  on  a  page  as  shown  on  pages  702,  705,  706, 
707,  712  and  724. 

As  a  matter  of  opinion,  I  think  Helgesen  is  wrong  through- 
out his  contention,  and  that  Cook  is  right.  Cook's  position  is 
not  comparable  with  that  of  Peary  in  this  matter.  Peary's 
motive  is  acknowledged.  Cook  only  had  two  Eskimo  com- 
panions, each  inured  to  the  climate  and  experienced  in  sledging 
with  Eskimo  dogs.  He  gives  clearly  his  reasons  for  this  selection, 
after  his  experience  with  them  of  a  month  crossing  Ellesmere 
Land,  and  they  are  soimd.  Francke  may  have  been  dis- 
appointed; may  have  hbd  hopes  that  he  would  have  been 
selected  as  one  of  the  party.  Helgesen  may  not  understand 
that  in  Cook's  situation,  discipline  is  an  essential  of  organization. 
Without  it  all  might  be  lost.  A  leader  of  men  does  not  often 
confide  all  his  plans,  nor  all  his  thoughts  to  his  subordinates. 
Cook  may  have  had  the  highest  respect  for  the  abihties  of  Francke 
in  many  duties,  but  after  a  ten  days'  trial  at  sledging,  he  may 
have  thought  he  did  not  measure  up  to  his  ideal  of  what  he 
needed  on  the  Polar  Sea,  but  still  thought  he  was  invaluable 
elsewhere,  as  he  evidently  considered  him. 

Amundsen  spent  a  winter  in  the  hut  with  his  men  and  all 
of  them,  no  doubt,  had  hopes  of  being  selected  in  the  spring  for 
the  South  Polar  dash.  But  in  the  end,  all  were  disappointed, 
except  the  few  that  he  did  finally  select.  Johansen,  the  com- 
panion of  Nansen  on  the  Polar  Sea,  was  one  of  the  disappointed. 
He  suicided  later.  It  is  thought  by  some  that  he  brooded  too 
much  after  the  success  and  the  discovery,  feeling  that  his  life 
work  was  a  failing  because,  seemingly  to  iiim,  Amundsen  ignored 
him. 

More  can  be  said  along  this  line.  Before  Amundsen  organ- 
ized his  expedition  in  Norway,  Scott  was  already  en  route  to 
the  South  Pole  with  his  expedition.  It  is  perhaps  improbable 
that  Amundsen  could  have  secured  the  necessary  funds  for  his 
expedition,  had  he  made  known  that  they  were  intended  to  be 


Congretaman  Helgeseri's  Speech 


451 


to  be 


used  in  an  expedition  to  the  South  Pole  in  competiti<Hi  with 
Scott. 

He  organized  his  expedition  and  engaged  his  crew,  as  I 
read  his  book,  for  a  trip  to  the  NORTH  POLE,  via  Behring 
Strait.  After  he  had  succeeded  by  his  ruse,  and  had  left  pjort, 
and  all  danger  of  thwarting  his  purpose  was  past,  he  stopped  at 
the  Madeiras.  For  the  first  time  he  told  his  men  frankly  of  his 
purpose,  asking  only  those  who  were  then  willing  to  continue  on 
the  voyage  for  the  SOUTH  POLE  to  remain.  The  rest,  or  those 
the  more  disappointed,  coiJd  return  to  their  homes.  It  may 
have  be  n  that  many,  or  all,  were  somewhat  disappointed. 
Amundsen  frankly  tells  it  all  in  his  book  South  Pole.  Some- 
times strategems  are  stepping  stones  to  glory. 

Cook  did  the  wise  thing  in  my  opinion  and  perhaps 
succeeded  in  his  venture  in  consequence  of  his  wisdom.  It 
appears  to  me  from  Helgesen's  criticisms  that  he  knows  but 
little  about  handling  men  in  peculiar  situations  and  that  his 
criticisms  are  unfair  and  imjust.  Anyway  it  has  nothing  to  do 
\s-ith  the  subject  supposed  to  be  under  consideration.  But  this 
is  Helgesen's  "impersonal"  way  of  proving,  by  such  instances 
as  this,  that  Cook  did  not  attain  the  Pole.  Such  importance 
does  he  ascribe  to  it  that  he  gives  more  attention  to  it  than  to 
any  other  criticism. 

I  must  now  jump  to  the  Polar  Sea  and  get  to  subjects,  if 
possible,  more  worth  considering. 

Helgesen  criticises  Cook  for  not  getting,  or  publishing  the 
variation  of  his  comptass.  I  cannot  consistently  complain  of 
this  for  I  too  have  criticised  him  for  the  same  thing.  But  I  con- 
tend that  I  have  been  impersonal,  fair  and  just  with  only  one 
object  in  view,  viz.,  to  unearth,  or  unfold,  to  my  readers,  the 
truth. 

Helgesen  unjustly  compares  Cook's  unique  positi<m  on  the 
97th  meridian  (v^hich  is  practically  the  magnetic  meridian)  with 
Peary's  position  on  the  70th  meridian.  I  need  not  repeat  my 
observati<»is  on  this  subject  which  appear  on  other  pages.  I 
only  wish  to  review  the  unjust  contention  of  Mr.  Helgesen. 


;i! 


imp 


^1.:. 


|i-i 


*M 


459 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeovered 


On  page  713  he  quotes  excerpts  from  a  letter  from  J.  S. 

Hoogewerff,  U.  S.  Navy,  omitting  a  part  of  the  letter,  which 

excerpts  as  quoted  are  as  follows: 

"HonH.  T.  Helgesen: 
Dear  Sir: 

Replying  to  your  letter  of  the  14th  instant  inquiring  about 
magnetic  variations,  variation  changes  with  change  of  position 
of  the  observer  in  either  latitude  or  longitude. 

"Neither  the  North  nor  the  South  magneticpoles  are  coin- 
cident with  the  geometric  poles  of  the  earth.  (There  are 
presumably  two  magnetic  .south  poles.)" 

"Observations  in  numerous  parts  of  the  world  have  es- 
tablished the  values  of  the  variation  and  these  have  been  plotted 
in  curves.  They  appear,  with  other  data,  on  the  Pilot  Chart 
issued  by  the  Hydrographic  OflSce,  Nai-y  Department." 

"The  curves  of  variation  on  the  Pilot  Chart  are  not  ex- 
tended into  extreme  polar  regions  for  the  reason  that  there  have 
been  no  observations  sufficient  to  permit  a  definite  charting  of 

the  Imes The  ti-aveler  from  Cape  Columbia 

to  the  North  Pole  might  expect  to  find  large  changes  in  varia- 
tion. " 

"J.  S.  Hoogewerff, 
Captain,  United  States  Navy,  Superintendent." 
The  last  sentence  obviously  answers  the  inquiry  made, 
which  inquiry,  however,  is  not  given,  but  its  nature  may  be 
implied  from  the  answer.  The  letter  as  published  is  made 
sufficiently  incomplete  to  oflFer  Mr.  Helgesen  an  opportunity 
(if  he  wishes  to  embrace  it)  to  construe  the  excerpts  to  his 
liking.  I  will, by  way  of  parenthesis  indulge  in  a  gratuitous 
speculation  on  this  letter.  All  except  the  two  last  paragraphs 
might  have  been  omitted.  The  asterisks  show  that  something 
M  omitted.  The  probable  fluctuations  of  the  variation  on  the 
96th  or  97th  meridians,  which  is  the  only  subject  bemg  con- 
sidered, are  not  mentioned.  But  the  inunaterial  probabilities 
of  fluctuation  on  the  70th  meridian  are  published.  The  cir- 
cumstances are  entirely  diflferent  on  the  97th  meridian,  as  I 
have  shown  on  other  pages,  the  reply  therefore  is  foreign  to  the 
question  involved.  What  may  we  infer  frran  this  system  of 
offering  evidence?    Perhapa  Captain  Hoogewerff  was  asked 


Congretaman  Hdgesen'a  Speech 


453 


. 


the  question  as  to  "  what  might  be  expected  as  to  the  fluctuation 
of  the  variation  on  the  97th  meridian"  and  answered  it 
somewhat  as  I  will  answer  it,  and  thai  his  reply  u  the  part 
auppreaaedl 

Captain  Hoogewerff  says,  "The  traveler  from  Cape  Colum- 
bia to  the  North  Pole  might  expect  to  find  large  changes  in 
variation."  Which  of  course  is  true,  but  it  is  saying  nothing 
about  what  a  traveler  from  Svartevoeg  to  the  North  Pole  might 
expect  on  the  96th  or  97th  medians. 

Nobody  knows,  as  Captain  Hoogewerff  indicates,  whether 
there  is  fluctuation  in  the  variation  itself  on  the  Polar  Sea  on 
either  of  those  longitudes  mentioned,  even  on  the  70th  far  north. 

It  is  strictly  true  that  compass  variation  fluctuates.  That 
the  isogonic  lines  in  some  parts  of  the  world  are  almost  as 
crooked  as  a  ram's  horn;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  in  other 
parts  and  for  many  himdreds  of  miles  in  length  th^  are  nearly 
straight  and  the  variation  quite  constant. 

Fluctiiations  in  the  variation  of  the  compass  are  not  so 
sudden  nor  so  pronounced  as  Mr.  Helgesen  would  seem  to  infer. 
If  they  were,  a  mariner's  compass  would  be  of  little  worth. 

I  think  it  would  be  a  safe  prediction  to  say,  and  I  think 
possibly  Captain  Hoogewerff  might  say  it,  if  he  did  not  already 
say  it,  that  "if  one  wished  to  travel  north  from  Svartevo^  to 
the  Pole  on  the  magnetic  meridian,  to  be  forty  days  en  route, 
he  would  probably  find  in  that  40  days  that  the  variation  of 
his  compass  would  be  practically  constant  all  the  way,  and  pro- 
bably at  180  degrees." 

He  would  not  know,  nobody  knows.  One  could  expect 
almost  anything  on  an  uncharted  and  unknown  sea. 

But  even  Dr.  Cook  is  entitled  to  fairness.  Coc^  was 
traveling  practically  on  the  96th  meridian  which  is  the  m<^etic 
meridian.  For  purposes  of  illustration  we  will  assume  that  he 
was  all  the  time  exactly  on  that  meridian.  head'oiK  north  with 
180  degrees  variatiim  in  his  compass,  t.  e.  his  compass  card 
which  read  north  was  pointing  south  because  he  was  on  the 
mr><^dian  that  connects  the  two  poles.    Cook  took  frequent 


454 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


t  i.  ' 

1: 


iil  '■  t 


^ 


observations  for  longitude-  Let  us  then  suppose  that  he  traveled 
by  his  compass  directly  north  towards  the  geographic  pole  from 
one  known  position  of  longitude  to  the  next  known  position  of 
longitude.  Suppose  that  the  second  position  placed  him  exactly 
on  the  same  longitude  as  did  the  first,  would  he  not  then  know 
(if  there  were  no  drift)  that  his  variation  was  constant  between 
those  points?  Or  if  the  last  position  placed  him  to  the  east  or 
to  the  west  of  the  96th  meridian  a  certain  number  of  miles, 
could  he  not  approximately,  if  not  accurately,  compute  his 
variation,  in  combination  with  his  drift,  and  know  how  much 
variation  to  allow  for  the  next  stretch  between  observations, 
and  so  on  to  the  geographic  pole? 

Cook  was  in  a  unique  and  peculiar  locality  traveling 
practically  on  the  magnetic  meridian.  No  man  before  him,  or 
since,  has  had  like  experience.  It  is  unfair  and  unjust  to  cwj- 
demn  a  person  in  such  circumstances  without  being  sure  of  the 
premises,  and  Helgesen  is  as  wide  of  the  mark  as  is  the  distance 
between  the  North  and  the  South  geographic  Poles. 

"Yet  this  fact"  (?)  says  Helgesen  on  page  722" in  con- 
junction with  Cook's  doctored  latitude,  is  sufficient  proof  that 
he  never  attained  the  Pole. " 

But  this  "doctored  latitude"  was  on  April  8,  gOO  miles 
from  the  North  Pole,  on  the  broad  Polar  Sea,  where  it  was  «Mn- 
paratively  immaterial  whether  he  "doctored"  it  or  not,  or  even 
whether  he  took  the  observations  or  not. 

This  statement  of  Helgesen  reaches  the  limit  of  audacity. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  it  will  deceive  anybody  not  wishing  to 
be  deceived.  Its  absurdity  is  so  apparent  that  it  is  not  un- 
dignified to  characterize  it  as  arrant  nonsense. 

Helgesen  commencing  <mi  page  715  devotes  several  pages  in 
an  attempt  to  discredit  the  discove/y  of  Bradley  Land  and 
Cook's  Glacial  Island.  He  thinks  Cook  may  have  doctored  up 
the  facts  gleaned  from  Peary's  description  of  his  trip  in  1906 
and  from  other  sources  which  he  names.  Helgesen  seklom 
ventures  to  offer  proof  of  any  character.  He  relies  on  inference 
and  his  skill  at  comment;  but  in  this  one  instance,  he  risks  it 


CongreMman  HdgetetCa  SfMch 


A55 


I  quote  from  page  722: 

"As  the  drift  of  the  ice  in  that  pari  of  the  toorld  had  been 
proven  by  previous  explorers — ^Nansen,  Cagni,  and  'So  Forth." 
This  indicates  that  Helgesen  for  once  had  o£Fered  genuine  proof. 
I  do  not  know  to  whom  he  refers  as  "SO  FORTH, "  but  if  he  is 
relying  upon  records,  "So  forth"  must  be  none  other  than 
Peary;  because  none  other  but  Peary  (and  his  companions)  ever 
claimed  to  have  witnessed  the  current  that  far  north  "In  that 
part  of  the  world."  (In  truth  neither  Peaiy  nor  any  other 
person  ever  went  that  far  north  in  that  locality.)  So  much 
for  the  proof  furnished  by  "So  forth." 

Now  as  to  Nansen  and  Cagni.  Neither  of  these  explorers 
were  ever  on  the  Polar  Sea  "in  that  part  of  the  world"  and 
could  not  have  proven  anything  on  the  subject.  The  Polar  Sea 
sledge  travels  of  both  of  them  were  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
globe.  Nearly  the  whole  toorld  in  that  latitude  was  between  the 
localities.  Such  is  the  unrehabihty  of  the  proof  on  wb':h 
Helgesen  attempts  to  establish  the  unreliability  of  Cook,  and 
such  is  the  hazard  of  venturing  on  proof.  "Conchuione"  are 
safer. 

When  Helgesen  has  followed  Cook's  narrative  to  the  Pole, 
the  vital  (or  fatal)  spot;  the  spot  he  is  endeavoring  to  prove 
(by  dexterously  manipulating  words)  was  never  visited  by  Cook, 
his  courage  seems  to  leave  him.  Here  is  the  spot  where  Cook 
must  show  his  hand.  He  must  attempt  to  prove  by  the  sun 
that  he  was  there.  It  was  vital  to  his  claim  that  he  do  this 
truly,  even  though  it  be  inconclusive  proof.  It  would  be  fatal 
to  do  it  falsely. 

Cook  says  he  took  seven  observations  of  the  sun.  Helgesen 
glibly  overhauled  with  his  usual  perspicacity  Cook's  observa- 
tions April  8  and  14,  ei^  route  north  where  their  accuracy  was 
comparatively  inunaterial,  because  Helgesen  obviously  only 
wished  to  show  Cook's  carelessness  wherever  he  could  find  it. 
It  is  the  only  working  capital  he  seems  to  have. 

But  when  he  gets  to  the  Pole  where  accuracy  regarding  the 
sun  is  essential,  when  eveiy  act  of  Cook  should  be  scnitmised 


•I;: 


456 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


becaiue  we  know  something  about  the  sun  even  at  the  Pole; 
where  I  expected  to  see  the.  brilliancy  of  Helgesen's  mind  dis- 
played to  advantage;  where  I  was  looking  for  an  intellectual 
treat  in  watching  his  skill  with  his  scalpel  m  dissecting  Cook's 
observations  and  perhaps  simultaneously  vivisecting  the  Doctor 
himself,  or  tossing  him  to  the  clouds;  astonishing  as  it  may 
seem,  on  all  these  vital  things,  he  is  as  silent  as  a  chamal  house. 

Cook  took  seven  observations  of  the  sun.  He  took  photo- 
graphs with  the  sun.  He  measured  shadows  of  the  sun.  He 
computed  his  time  by  the  sun.  He  measured  its  altitude  in 
different  ways.  He  calculated  its  parallax  refraction  and 
declination.  For  goodness  sake,  was  there  nothing  in  all  these 
tkcts,  claimed  to  have  been  done  right  at  the  North  Pole  worthy 
of  criticism  by  an  acknowledged  genius? 

Helgesen  sticks  to  his  adopted  tactics  even  at  the  Pole  of 
catching  Cook  at  inaccuracies  in  trifling  non-essential  matters. 
He  reviews  the  dates  of  Cook's  arrival  and  departure,  not  the 
fact  of  arrival,  the  inaccuracy  of  the  hour  of  moving  to  the 
second  camp,  not  the  fact  of  moving;  the  methods  of 
meastiring  shadows,  not  disputing  the  fact  of  the  measurements. 
But  he  is  surely  in  his  element  and  imder  safe  shelter  in  charging 
Cook  wit^i  possibly  plagiarizing  his  descriptions  of  the  color  of 
the  ice  and  snow,  the  temperate  and  the  ocean  current,  because 
this  charge  is  simply  imagination.  If  Cook  described  these  as 
others  have  done,  it  is  as  much  evidence  of  its  truth  as  it  is  of 
plagiarism.  In  fact  all  of  Helgesen's  criticisms  are  apparently 
puerile,  picayunish,  pettif(^ging  attempts  at  jug^hig  with 
clerical  errors.  He  spreads  his  comments  on  these  matters  over 
five  pages  of  the  Record;  repeating  himself  over  and  ov^r; 
quoting  the  same  things  over  and  over;  admitting  as  I  have 
inferred, the  clerical  errors,  then  linking  those  errors  with  the 
facts,  and  juggling  with  the  combination  to  such  utter  confusion 
in  an  apparently  vain  attempt  to  give  force  to  his  farcical  crit- 
icisms, that  it  will  require  a  discerning  mind  to  even  conjecture 
what  he  is  driving  at. 


Congreaaman  TtelgeaerCs  Speech 


457 


Helgeaen  says  on  page  70S,  expressing  his  sentiment  for 
Cook,  "I  have  hesitated  to  add  anything  to  the  load  of  criticism 
that  has  been  heaped  upon  a  man  who  has  been  treated  with 
great  injustice. " 

Evidently  that  heaitation  was  but  momentary. 

Helgesen  on  the  return  trip  apparently  weakens.  He 
"hedges"  on  his  denial  of  the  discovery  of  Bradley  Land  by 
saying  on  page  720: 

"Even  if  later  explorers  report  the  existence  of  land  at  or 
aboitt  the  place  where  Cook  reported  'Bradley  Land,*  such  a 
report  will  not  prove  that  Cook  was  ever  there,  for  the  theory 
of  an  Arctic  Continent  in  the  Polar  Sea  has  long  been  held,  and 
in  the  light  of  Cook's  other  contradictory  reports,  such  a 
()ossible  confirmation  of  his  Bradley  Land  can  be  only  considered 
as  the  confirmation  of  a  iucky  guess.' " 

Not  much  bravery  in  a  critic  seeking  refuge  in  this  manner. 

Helgesen  follows  Cook's  narrative  with  his  wolfish  eyes  from 
the  Pole  down  to  Crown  Prince  Gustave  Sea,  then  to  Sparbo, 
then  on  back  to  Annoatok,  and  home;  criticising  every  move,  and 
apparently  almost  every  sentence.  He  says,  page  720,  that 
Cook  mentions  seeing  some  smaU  islands  near  Binges  Land. 
But  Helgesen  says  he  cannot  find  those  islands  on  any  map; 
hence  the  unreliability  of  Cook.  Cook  says  that  he  suffered 
from  hunger  after  leaving  Sparbo.  Whitney  and  Francke  both 
say  that  he  was  practically  a  skeleton  when  he  reached  Annoatok. 
But  Helgesen  shows  by  calculation  that  Cook  is  mistaken ;  and  so 
on  in  over  forty  criticisms  he  foUows  him  back  to  Annoatok, 
Greenland. .  It  would  be  in  vain  to  claim  that  there  is  any 
purpose  in  these  criticisms  south  of  Svartevoeg  to  get  at  the 
truth  about  the  North  Pole.  They  can  be  for  no  other  pur- 
pose than  to  find  data  for  damaging  Cook's  reputaticm. 

Mr.  Helgesen  adopts  throughout  his  speech  the  usual 
tactics  of  debators  who  have  not  a  stitmg  argumoit  to  present . 
by  stating  that  "Cook  does  not  say," — "does  not  explain," — 
"  fails  to  !>tate, " — "does  not  tell  us, "  etc.,  etc.,  in  various  phrases 


1^11'i 

HBfl'f 

! 

j|Pf''l 

syi  'i 

SB  ||. 

m  Jfl   *^  i 

1*1  ^' 

458 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Diacoee  red 


to  express  this  meaning.  Knowing,  of  course,  that  to  accuse 
one  of  what  he  doos  noi  do,  or  does  not  aay  is  a  perfectly  safe 
proposition,  and  that  one  could  fill  a  volume  with  such  accusa- 
tions big  enough  to  sink  a  ship.  Nevertheless,  it  is  proper  in 
this  instance  to  come  back  at  Mr.  Helgesen  with  one  of  his  own 
weapons.    On  page  71«-71S,  Mr.  Helgesen  says: 

"A  notable  feature  of  Peary's  narrative  of  his  last  polar 
expedition  is  his  rapid  increase  in  speed  immediately  after  the 
return  of  his  last  suppoiting  party.  So  with  Dr.  Cook.  The 
day  following  the  return  of  ihe  two  Eskimos  who  composed 
what  he  called  his  'last  feed  men*  his  mileage  jumped  from  16 
miles  on  March  «0  to  29  miles  on  March  21,  almost  double  the 
speed  of  the  previous  day. " 

This  is  a  fact,  but  in  the  insinuating  manner  stated,  it 
is  misleading  and  deceptive.  Why  could  not  Mr.  Helgesen,  in 
this  instance  have  reached  the  stature  of  the  noble  character  pic- 
tured in  position  No.  1  and  have  bronght  in  to  the  comparison  the 
traveling  speed  of  McMillan,  the  only  person  besides  Cook  who 
ever  traversed  that  portion  of  the  Polar  Sea?  Why,  I  ask,  does 
he  go  to  another  sea  and  select  a  coincidence  for  a  comparison, 
when  he  knows  that  this  coinciding  circumstance  i»  fiction? 
Why  did  he  not  say  that  McMillan  traveled  practically  over  the 
same  spot  (at  least  over  the  same  sea,  in  the  same  vicinity)  in 
the  Sv'»nie  season  of  the  year,  and  on  his  return  trip  from  the 
search  for  the  mythical  Crocker  Land,  traveled  50  miles  on  the 
first  day,  48  miles  on  the  2nd  day,  85  miles  on  the  third,  which 
brought  him  within  17  miles  of  land,  which  the  next  day  he 
covered  in  a  few  hours?  Had  Helgesen  shown  the  comparative 
speed  even  of  these  three  travelers  together,  any  reader  couW 
then  judge  as  to  what  the  probable  truth  is  as  to  Cook's  alleged 
speed  on  March  21  of  29  miles.  Is  Helgesen's  comparison  in 
this  instance  an  honest  effort  to  evoke  the  truth  as  he  claims  it 
to  be,  or  is  it  an  effort  to  suppress  the  tnith? 

But  the  question  that  I  am  attempting  to  decide  is:  Has 
Helgesen  discovered  a  sentence  in  Cook's  writings  that  can  be 
used  as  evidence  in  disproving  his  claim  to  the  discovery  of  the 


Congrewman  Helgeaen's  Speech 


459 


North  Pole.  Hi.c,c^n  has  shown  his  hand.  He  has  divulged 
his  tactics.  He  has  exposed  himself  to  lie  a  person  of  far  greater 
moral  obliquity  than  he  has  shown  Dr.  Cook  to  be,  in  my 
opinion.  But  the  reputation  of  neither  of  them  i$  at  iarue 
in  this  research. 

I  have  been  told  that  one  can  prove  too  much  at  times. 

Suppose  for  illustration  it  be  accepted  as  proven  that  G)ok 
never  writes  a  narrative  truthfully;  that  everything  he  does 
write  is  known  to  be  false  by  everybody.  Does  this  knowledge 
prove  that  he  did  not  sail  from  Gloucester  because  of  his  false 
description  of  events  at  that  port?  That  he  did  not  start  from 
Annoatok  on  February  19,  because  the  sun  did  not  rise  on  the 
day  he  says  it  did?  That  he  did  not  cross  EUesmere  Land  be- 
cause of  his  open  perfidy  with  Francke;  or  travel  north  because 
he  did  not  publish  his  compass  variation;  or  pass  by  Ringes 
Islands  because  there  are  no  small  islands  near  there  shown  on 
any  map;  or  visit  Sparbo  and  return  to  Annoatok  because  he 
falsely  says  he  suffered  from  b  ger  en  route?  If  we  admit  that 
IJelgesen  has  actually  proven  all  these  things,  then  why  can  he 
not  verify  at  least  one  of  them,  in  some  way,  by  showing  where 
Cook  probably  was  during  that  year  from  February  1908  to 
April  1909?  He  was  somewhere  if  he  was  not  at  any  of  these 
places. 

On  the  other  hand  if  these  accepted  inaccuracies  do  ru^ 
prove  that  Cook  did  not  visit  these  localities,  then  on  what 
theory  of  logic  can  they  prove  that  he  did  not  go  to  the  Pole? 
Cannot  a  liar  get  to  the  Pole,  or  a  criminal? 

I  presume  Mr.  Helgesen  will  admit  that  which  no  one 
disputes,  because  proven  by  others,  that  Dr.  Cook  actually  did 
visit  all  the  geographical  points  he  has  mentioned  that  arc  as 
far  south  as  Svartevoeg  inclusive,  pis,,  Gloucester,  Annoatok, 
Ringes  Land  and  Sparbo  and  points  en  route.  If  he  does  admit 
these  visits,  and  we  should  also  admit  for  purposes  of  argument, 
that  Helgesen  has  proven  all  his  contentions  against  Cook's 
veTu  -ty;  then  in  that  event  Helgesen  has  certainly  also  proven 


;f 


*- 


I 


4i  I 


460 


HoM  the  North  Vale  Been  Diaeovered 


that  falsifying  \b  no  bar  to  $ome  of  an  explorer* $  aecomplUkmenta: 
which  is  the  point  for  which  I  am  contending. 

This  fact  being  a  proven  certainty,  and  proven  by  Helgeeen 
hinuelf,  then  for  what  earthly  purpose  can  this  attempt  at 
showing  inaccuracy  and  falsification  on  the  part  of  Cook  at 
every  point  all  around  thia  cireuitoiu  route  be  introduced,  if  it  be 
not  for  the  aole  purpoee  of  injuring  Dr.  Gmk,  the  individual? 
To  injure  his  reputation  and  his  standing  in  the  public  mind? 
This  evidence  is  not  intrr>duced  in  a  single  instance  for  the 
purpoi<e  of  corroborating  any  established  fact. 

Discovery  is  a  fact,  not  a  bauble  that  can  be  exploded  by 
innuendo,  insinuation  or  by  showing  the  discoverer  to  be  in- 
accurate or  unreliable.  The  reputation  of  Wilkes,  the  in- 
dividual,  was  impaired  by  slander,  prejudice,  jealousy  and 
falsehood,  as  others  have  lieen,  but  his  di%overy  is  a  fact;  and 
Wilkes,  the  explorer,  is  joined  as  much  as  the  rocks  to  the  An- 
tarctic Continent.  Certain  qualifications  are  essential  to  the 
success  of  an  explorer  on  the  Polar  Sea,  but  accuracy  or  veracity 
is  not  among  them.  Criminality  even  would  not  bar  him. 
Neither  can  the  truth  nor  falsity  of  an  explorer's  claim  be 
established  by  beli^.    It  must  be  by  evidence. 

Thousands  of  persons,  through  the  influence  of  an  organized 
press  bureau  campaign  believe  that  Peary  reached  the  North 
Pole  in  1009.  The  bdi^  must  be  well  nigh  universal  that  he 
reached  87°  6'  m  1006. 

Many  persons  believe  vhsX  they  want  to  believe.  Shake- 
speare wrote. 

"  When  my  love  swears  that  she  is  made  of  truth, 
I  do  believe  her,  though  I  know  she  lies. " 

The  fact  that  Mr.  Helgesen  and  others  whose  writings  I 
have  reviewed  will  resort  to  such  methods  as  I  have  herein  ex- 
posed not  only  indicates,  but  is  etrong  evidence  that  each  of  them 
believes  (or  fears)  that  Cook  reached  the  Pole,  which  they  regret. 

Cook's  ascent  of  Mt.  McKinley  rested  wholly  on  belief 


Congreuman  Hdgeten'i  Speech 


481 


until  fubaequent  explorera,  in  attempting  to  rob  him  of  hi* 
glory,  proved  hit  claim* 

When  Peary  made  his  statement  No.  1  on  one  day  and  then 
on  the  next  day  proved  by  an  alleged  observation  that  the 
first  sUtement  was  false,  it  was  his  midoing.  But  it  was  not 
the  falsehood  itself  that  was  significant;  it  would  not  have  been 
significant  even  if  he  had  falsified  every  sentence  in  his  story. 
But  the  significance  rested  in  the  FACT  that  the  falsehood 
proved  INVENTION,  and  proving  invention,  SOLVED  THE 
PROBLEM. 

When  anyone  can  catch  Cook  at  business  of  that  character, 
it  will  be  Cook's  undoing.  I  commented  on  his  measuring 
shadows,  but  I  am  not  infallible.  It  is  not  proof.  Cook  should 
not  suffer  for  my  opinion. 

Cook  never  will  be,  nor  ever  ran  be  convicted  by  any  such 
methods  as  those  adopted  by  Prof.  Stockwell.  Geo.  Kennan, 
Karl  Decker  or  the  Hon.  Henry  T.  Helgesen.  They  convict 
themselves,  but  not  Cook. 

If  anyone  can  show  something  in  Cook's  narrative  that  is 
good  evidence  that  he  did  not  reach  the  Pole,  it  is  certainly  high 
time,  for  the  benefit  of  this  generation,  he  got  at  it.  I  should 
like  to  read  it. 

I  have  not  reviewed  all  the  criticisms  made  by  Mr.  Helgesen. 
I  have  selected  only  those  that  seemed  to  me  most  pointed  in 
their  nature,  or  that  had  tl'c  most  force. 

It  will,  I  think,  be  seen  tuat  Mr.  Helgesen  has  not  produced 
one  sentence  on  any  subject  in  Cook's  writings  that  is  evidence 
or  proof  that  he  did  not  attam  the  Pole;  or  evidence  that  is 
mconsistent  with  the  theory  of  his  attaining  it;  or  evidence  even 
that  It  was  written  to  deceive  one  into  believing  that  he  reached 
the  Pole.    This  is  all  I  care  to  do. 

(Helgesen  furnishes  evidence  of  contradiction  by  Cook  in 

a  letter  from  Upemavik  to  Capt.  Bemier  as  to  Cook's  seeing 

or  not  seeing  Crocker  Land.    I  shaU  not  attempt  to  uphold, 

condone  or  defend  Cook's  reputation  for  accuracy  or  truthful- 

*Mt.  MeKinUit  and  MouHtoin  CUtnbtn  Pn^t—Edim  Swift  Bklch. 


I.. . 


Mfe.. 


402 


Hna  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


ness  against  Helgesen's  desire  to  assail  it.  It  is  not  my  purpose. 
It  is  not  at  issue  in  this  contention.  It  befogs  the  issue.  Let 
the  record  stand  as  Helgesen  makes  it,  as  far  as  its  materiality 
is  concerned  in  this  review.  That  issue  can  be  discussed  on  its 
own  merits  by  Cook's  friends.  I  think  they  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  turning  the  tables  on  Mr.  Helgesen,  if  any  good 
ptupose  can  be  served  by  doing  so.) 

Helgesen  has  not  proven  his  conclusions  to  be  justified, 
but  has  accomplished  the  ends  he  evidently  has  sought,  and 
more.  He  has  builded  (or  torn  down)  better  thwi  he  knew 
He  has  injured  ihe  reputation  of  another.  Not  a  difficult 
thing  to  do,  if  one  is  sufficiently  strenuous  and  persistent- 
Like  begets  like.  One  reaps  what  he  sows.  He  has  also 
injured,  irreparably,  the  reputation  of  Mr.  Helgesen. 

I  doubt  if  any  unbiased,  impartial  reader  of  Mr.  Helgesen's 
speech  can  come  to  any  other  conclusion  than  that  it  is  a  studied, 
strained  endeavor  to  create  prejudice  against  Cook  for  peraraial 

reasons. 

Mr.  Helgesen  has  rendered  valuable  service  to  the  Govern- 
ment and  to  the  cause  of  truth  by  his  researches,  investigations 
and  true  analysis  of  Peary's  claims. 

But  what  answer  will  he  make  when  the  friends  of  Peary 
falsely  and  illogically  say  that  his  insincerity  regarding  Cook's 
claims  prove  his  insincerity  in  regard  to  Peary's  claims?  Will 
he  not  then  realize  that  he  has  placed  himself  in  the  position 
he  has  been  endeavoring  to  place  Cook? 

There  is  nothing  yet  produced  by  anyone  that  would  evoi 
temporarily  auspend  the  claims  of  any  explorer  except  Cook. 
Peary  is  the  one  who  originated  the  contention,  and  through 
the  friendly  eflforts  of  a  naval  clique  and  a  press  syndicate, 
backed  by  multi-millionaires  whose  names  are  perpetuated  on 
false  capes  and  camps,  has  created  pubUc  opinion.  But  aU  the 
other  complainants,  parrot  like,  are  simply  singing  what  they 
have  been  taught. 

Far  better  evidence  to  discredit  Cook's  attainment  oi  the 


i'«,^l     ^'    ' 


Congres»man  Helgeseri's  Speech 


463 


Pole  than  anything  yet  written  by  his  enemies  is  the  indications 
of  land  at  the  Pole. 

The  easterly  current  '-  irti<  •!  Grant  Land,  the  southerly 
current  west  of  that  Lf.ui,  the  ^vesitf  y  current  from  the 
Mackraizie  river,  as  prove  hy  the  drift  f  i  the  Karluk,  Jeanette, 
Fram  and  ten  whaling  shii  ^  u^  1777.  ar  J  the  fact  that  all  these 
currents  mingle  near  the  south  end  of  Greenland  and  flow  into 
the  Atlantic,  points  clearly  to  the  probability  that  land  exists 
in  the  vicmity  of  the  Pole.  Possibly  it  may  not  be  above  the 
surface  of  the  ocean,  but  near  enough  to  the  surface  to  direct 
these  currents. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  two  separate  matters  that 
arise  to  the  surface  in  this  investigation  which,  to  my  mind, 
indicate  that  Cook  may  have  reached  the  Pole. 

The  first  is  the  significant  fact  that  Cook's  two  Eskimos 
did  not  (in  Peary's  own  report)  deny  to  Peary  at  Etah  that  they 
reached  the  Pole  vrith  Cook.  And  (provided  Whitney  is  correctly 
reported)  the  further  significance  which  attaches  to  this  fact  is 
that  they  cotdd  not  be  induced  by  Peary's  friends  to  deny  it.  And 
the  still  further  significance  is  in  the  fad  that  they  vme  not  given 
an  opportunity  io  affirm  it. 

I  cannot  see,  how  this  circumstance  can  fairly  be  considered 
in  any  other  light  than  evidence  by  witnesses. 

The  second  is  the  peculiar  significance  which  attaches  to 
the  picture  "Mending  Near  tht  Pole." 

No  one,  not  even  Cook,  can  prove  that  he  attained  ♦-he 
Pole,  but  these  two  circumstances  indicate  that  he  may  have 
done  so. 

Mr.  Helgesen  quotes  Cook  to  agree  with  him  that 
"few  men  in  all  history     .     .     .    have  ever  been  made  the 
subject  of  such  vicious  attacks  of  such  malevolent  assailing  of 
character  of  such  series  of  perjured  and  forged  charges    .     .     . 
as  I." 

Both  are  mistaken.  The  storm  that  is  now  blowing  around 
the  name  of  Frederick  A.  Cook  is  a  gentle  zephyr  compared  with 
the  hurricanes  that  have  raged  around  the  names  of  his  prede- 
cessors returning  from  the  Arctic  and  Antarctic  Seas.    A  fickle 


464 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  DUcocered 


i*  e 


1^ 


.  •■•:-i;'5' 


if  ^ 


public  soon  loses  mterest,  soon  forgets.  After  a  wlule  magazine 
and  newspaper  articles  will  be  buried  in  oblivion.  The  child 
of  today  will  not  know  their  contents.  But  he  will  read  history 
and  the  narratives  of  explorers.  Some  of  those  returning  e:^. 
plorers  to  whom  I  refer  were  not  charged  with  "inaccuracy," 
but  with  Crimea;  heinoua  and  diabolical.  But  they  afterward 
lived  exemplary  Uves,  deservedly  honored  and  renowned. 
Few  men  of  great  achievement  escape  calumny.  Some  per- 
sons even  today  delight  m  reviving  the  scandals  of  the  days  of 
Washington,  but  while  these  scandals  were  apparently  of  in- 
terest in  Washington's  lifetime,  to  revive  them  now  is  unpopular. 
No  one  I  believe  was  ever  more  viciously  traduced  than  Lmcok, 
even  in  my  days,  and  even  by  men  now  living.  But  no  public 
man  can  serve  his  interest  by  reviving  them,  hence  they  are 
mostly  foi^tten. 

Unless  something  in  Cook's  narrative  is  found,  or  some 
explorer  produces  evidence  that  proves  adversely  to  Cook's 
c  aim,  history  wiU  certainly  award  him  the  honor  of  bemg  the 
discoverer  of  the  North  Polr 

As  long  as  it  is  popular  and  accords  with  public  sentiment. 
It  may  be  expected  that  muckrakers  and  opportunists  will 
defame  and  traduce  the  down  and  under.  Dr.  Cook,  because  it  is 
well  known  that  all  can  listen,  but  few  penetrate. 

Cook  must  expect  this  treatment  however  unjust.  It  is 
the  penalty  of  great  achievement.  Students  of  the  situation 
must  expect  it.  He  is  not  differently  situated  than  was  Wilkes 
m  the  far  Antarctic,  who  within  a  year  or  two  past,  has  finally 
been  vindicated.  Or  than  was  Stanley  in  Africa.  Or  the 
others  to  whom  I  will  refer.  Cook  may  not  live  to  be  vmdicated, 
if  he  deserves  vindication.  He  wiU  in  aU  probability  go  down 
to  his  grave  as  did  Wilkes,  unwept,  unhonored  and  unsung. 
But  time,  the  great  alchemist,  wiU  eventually  combine  aU  these 
charges  into  his  meltmg  pot,  and  if  the  truth  justifies 
it,  transmute  them  into  gold. 


CHAPTER    Vn 
CONCLUSIONS 


The  foregoing  pages  establish  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt 
that  Cook's  narrative  taken  as  a  whole  presents  a  reasonable 
case,  that  diligent  search  has  failed  to  find  any  critic  who  has 
discovered  anything  unreasonable  within  its  pages.  As  far  as 
this  research  extends,  it  is  proved  that  all  critics  without  a 
single  exception  who  have  attacked  Cook  have  themselves  relied 
upon  false  premises  and  this  is  conclusive  evidence,  that  they 
have  found  nothing  truthful  against  him.  If  the  OuOook  can 
find  no  truthful  facts  to  present;  if  Prof.  Stockwell  cannot 
truthfully  discredit  any  orrors  in  Cook's  astronomical  claims; 
if  the  Peary  Arctic  Club  cannot  formulate  a  clearer  statement 
of  the  Eskimo  inqvimtion  than  the  one  published;  what  voice 
or  pen  will  be  likely  to  be  raised  against  the  mtegrity  of  Cook'j 
story? 

As  the  case  now  stands,  none  appears  to  be  needed.  A 
member  of  a  contesting  team  umpires  the  game.  A  plaintiff 
is  the  judge  in  his  own  case.  ONE  man:  Robert  E.  Peary, 
himself  a  competing  claimant  for  the  honor,  is  the  only  person 
who  has  furnished  a  scrap  of  evidence  to  discredit  Cook's 
narrative.  Every  word  furnished  by  this  man  is  ex-parte, 
hearsay.  Neverthelesj,  with  the  assistance  of  a  compact 
clique  of  wealthy  and  influoitial  citizens,  he  has  been  instru- 
mental in  successfully  condemning,  in  the  eyes  of  civilised 
mwkind,  as  a  humbug  and  cheat,  a  POSSIBLE  discoverer  of 
the  NORTH  POLE. 

POUR  men :  Henry  Gannett,  O.  H.  Tittmann,  and  Colby 
M.  Chester,  (each  a  high  Government  official)  with  Gilbwt  H. 
Grosvenor  as  an  accomplice,   after  a  few  hours  superficial, 

485 


466 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


tljh^' 


partisan,  farcical  investigation;  instigated  by  themselves; 
through  an  obviously  organized  conspiracy,  have  named,  and 
the  civilized  world  has  accepted  that  name,  an  IMPOSSIBLE 
CLAIMANT,  as  the  discoverer  of  the  North  Pole. 

Standard  historians  and  noted  explorers  have  expressed 
confidence  in  Cook's  story.  Capt.  Evelyn  Briggs  Baldwin, 
meteorologist  of  the  Peary  expedition  1893-4, second  in  command 
of  the  Wellman  expedition  1898-9,  organizer  and  leader  of 
the  Baldwin-Ziegler  Polar  Expedition  1901-2,  etc.,  writes: 
"All  the  world's  greatest  explorers,  have  endorsed  Cook  in- 
cluding Rear  Admiral  W.  S.  Schley,  General  A.  W.  Greeley, 
Capt.  Otto  Sverdrup,  and  Capt.  Roald  Amundsen."*  Haddok, 
a  distinguished  scientist  of  John  Hopkins  University,  contends 
that  Cook  reached  the  Pole. 

History  should  be  the  truth.  But  if  history  were  always 
true,  historians  would  be  in  accord  and  unanimous  as  to  facts 
within  their  knowledge.  But  they  are  not.  In  the  11th  edition 
of  the  Encyclopedia  Brittanica,  the  chapter  on  polar  explorations 
is  very  extravagant  in  praise  of  Peary's  alleged  achievement. 
It  omits  any  reference  to  Cook's  experience  on  that  sea  in  1907-8 
except  the  following  sentence  printed  in  small  type:  "Dr. 
Frederick  A.  Cook  spent  two  years  in  the  Arctic  regions,  1907- 
1909  and  claimed  to  have  reached  the  Pole  by  sledging  alone 
with  two  Eskimos  a  year  before  Peary.  He  submitted  the 
evidence  for  this  achievement  to  the  University  of  Copenhagen 
which  failed  to  find  it  satisfactory  and  Dr.  Cook  did  not  appear 
to  challenge  this  decision. " 

Cook  is  a  noted  explorer  in  both  the  Arctic  and  Antarctic 

Seas  of  20  years  experience.   It  is  well  known  that  during  the 

"two  years"  mentioned  (1907-9)  he  traveled  on  the  North  PoUr 

Sea  over  territory  never  before  trodden  by  man.    Even  though 

he  went  no  farther  north  from  Heiberg  Land  than  92  miles,  it  is 

a  greater  distance  than  any  explorer  in  arctic  history  has 

succeeded  in  reaching,  excepting  Nansen,  Cagni  and  possibly 

*€ook  in  hia  "AtUinment  of  the  Pole"  published  the  munea  of  tame 
50  exploren  who  endorse  his  daima. 


ConclutioTu 


467 


Peaiy.    It  lacks  only  S7  miles  of  equalling  the  northing  made 

by  Nansen  after  he  left  his  ship.    Therefore,  if  we  admit  for 

this  purpose,  that  Cook  did  not  go  to  the  Pole,  can  it  be  the 

history  of  polar  exploration,  to  omit  his  acknowledged  exploits? 

Is  it  giving  the  public  the  available  knowledge  on  a  special 

subject?    Cortez  lied,  betrayed,  assassinated.   So  did  Pizarro. 

But  the  history  of  Mexico  or  Peru  would  be  incomplete,  if  no 

reference  were  made  to  those  names,  because  of  those  crimes. 

Greneral  A.  W.  Greeley, undoubtedly  the  highest  authority 

on  polar  matters  mentions  instances  of  the  claims  of  discoverers, 

whose  claims  were  proved  fictitious  by  subsequent  explorers. 

Instances  of  discredited  claims  are  not  infrequent  in  the  voyages 

of  exploration  in  the  Antartic  Sea.     Is,  therefore,  the  omission 

of  what  Cook  did  in  the  Arctic  in  1907-1908  promidgating,  or  is 

it  suppressing  knowledge?    May  it  not  reflect  Byron's  thought: 

"The  Caeser's  pageant  shorn  of  Brutus'  bust 
Did  but  of  Rome's  best  son  remind  her  more. " 

Dr.  Fitzjof  Nansen,  the  great  explorer,  wrote  the  chapter 
referred  to,  in  the  Encyclopedia  Brittanica.  Some  of  Nansen's 
feats  in  the  Arctic  are  unrivalled  in  the  annals  of  polar  explora- 
tion. He  served  his  king  with  distinction  as  Ambassador  to  the 
Court  of  St.  James.  He  is  a  friend  of  Amundsen,  and  but  for 
his  assistance,  moral  and  financial,  it  is  possible  that  Amundsen's 
project  would  have  failed  of  the  necessaiy  support.  Nansen, 
therefore,  is  entitled  to  no  Uttle  share  in  the  discoveiy  of  the 
South  Pole,  and  Amundsen  with  his  big  heart,  gives  him  fuU 
credit.    But  the  truth  must  be  told. 

Nansen's  claim  to  his  farthest  north,  is  no  better  than 
Cook's  claim  to  his  North  Pole.  Nansen  presents  no  different 
and  no  stronger  evidence.  His  evidence  rests  on  the  same,  but 
no  sounder  basis.  In  truth,  there  are  more  paragn^hs  in 
Nansen's  book,  to  make  one  hold  his  breath,  thau  can  be  found 
on  any  page  in  Cook's  book.  This  being  true,  it  must  be 
written  to  be  fair  and  just.  It  is  but  justice  to  Nansen  to  say, 
that  no  stronger  evidence  could  have  been  presented  than  he 


0 


468 


Haa  the  North  Pde  Been  Discovered 


He  offered  all  he  had,  all  he  could  offer.    So  has 


m: 


t  • 


,  a 


J-  m 


lAi'f 


has  offered. 
Cook. 

Cook  as  weU  as  Nansen,  seems  at  times  to  lack  political 
sagacity.  This  also  may  as  well  be  told.  Cook  erred  perhaps, 
when  he  succumbed  to  the  overwhehning  pressure,  even  though 
he  was  unable,  financially  or  otherwise  to  withstand  it,  in 
expatriating  himself.  He  erred  perhaps  in  sending  his  data  to 
Copenhagen,  under  fire.  Had  he  then  published  to  the  world 
all  his  observations  and  calculations  thereon,  as  he  has  since 
published  them  in  his  book,  and  challenged  Peaiy  to  do  the 
same  with  his  alleged  observations,  he  would  have  exposed 
the  masquerader  because  Peaiy  never  would  have  met  the 
challenge.     He  never  will  meet  it. 

Cook  is  one  of  the  most  brilliant  narrative  and  descriptive 
writers  in  the  English  language;  stiU  it  is  said  that  in  some  of 
his  positions  he  lacks  tact.  After  Cook  returned  from  serving 
Peary  in  the  Arctic  he  joined  the  Belgian  Antarctic  Expedition 
as  surgeon  and  anthropologist.  Amundsen  was  chief  mate. 
The  ship  became  fast  in  the  ice  early  in  the  Antarctic  autumn 
and  did  not  emerge  untU  late  the  following  season,  spending 
nearly  a  year  imprisoned  in  the  pack.  That  expedition  was  the 
first  to  pass  a  winter  in  the  far  Antarctic  Sea. 

Cook  published  an  account  of  that  voyage  in  a  book  of 
wide  reputation.  The  First  Antarctic  Night.  Had  he  been  guided 
by  political  expediency,  some  paragraphs  in  that  book  might 
have  been  omitted.  Being  a  physician  and  scientist,  desiring 
to  sustain  his  views  on  the  subject  of  physical  health  in  polar 
regions,  he  took  issue  with  some  paragraphs  in  Nansen's  book, 
Farthest  North.  His  dissent  may  be  interpreted  to  infer,  that 
Nansen's  claims  as  to  the  health  of  his  comrades  under  specified 
conditions,  were  not  altogether  reliable;  or  that  as  related  by 
Nansen  they  were  misleading.  This  position  of  Cook  was 
proper  enough,  except  as  a  matter  of  sheer  policy. 

Amundsen,  a  com  %de  during  that  long  Antarctic  nigh*, 
knows  Cook  from  A  to  Since  then  Amundsen  has  success- 
fuUy  made  the  Northwests  a  Passage;  has  discovered  the  South 


Condtuumi 


460 


Pole;  and  has  written  a  notable  book  himself  called  The  South 
Pole.  His  great  friend  Nansen  wrote  the  prelude  to  that  book. 
Johansen,  Nansen's  sledging  companion,  was  a  companion  with 
Amundsen  a  whole  winter  in  the  Antarctic.  Years,  therefore, 
before  publishing  his  .wn  book,  Amundsen  had,  of  course,  read 
Nansen's  Farthest  North;  he  was  intimate  with  Johansen;  and 
he  had  read  Cook's  The  First  Antarctic  Night,  including  the 
comments  of  Cook  therein  on  Nansen's  claims  as  to  the  health 
of  his  party.  He,  therefore,  knew  all  the  circumstances  from 
every  point  of  view,  and  he  knew  intimately  all  the  parties 
involved.  On  page  19,  Amundsen's  South  Pole  appears  the 
following: 

"Frederick  A.  Cook  of  Brooklyn,  was  surgeon  to  the  ex- 
pedition, beloved  and  respected  by  all.  As  a  medical  man, 
his  calm,  and  convincing  presence  had  an  excellent  effect. 
As  things  turned  out  the  greatest  resporsibility  fell  upon  C<x)k, 
but  he  mastered  the  situation  in  a  wonderful  way.  Through 
his  practical  qualities  he  became  mdispensable.  It  cannot  be 
de.i;cd  that  the  Belgian  Antarctic  expedition  owes  a  great  debt 
to  Cook. " 

Writing  of  sickness  and  scurvy  he  says:* 

"Cook's  behaviour  at  this  time  won  the  respect  and  de- 
votion of  all.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  Cook  was  the  most 
popular  man  of  the  expedition,  and  he  deserved  it.  From 
morning  to  night  he  was  occupied  with  his  many  patients,  and 
when  the  sim  returned  it  happened  not  infrequently  that,  after 
a  strenuoiu.  day's  work  the  doctor  sacrificed  his  night's  sleep  to 
go  hunting  seals  and  penguins,  in  order  to  provide  the  fi-esh 
meat  that  was  so  greatly  needed  by  all. 

"On  July  22  the  sun  returned.  It  was  not  a  pleasant  sight 
that  it  shone  upon.  The  Antarctic  winter  set  its  mark  upon 
all,  the  green,  wasted  faces  stared  at  the  returning  light. 

"Time  went  on,  and  the  summer  arrived.  "They  waited 
(lay  by  day  to  see  a  change  in  the  ice.  But  no;  the  ice  they  had 
entered  so  light-heartedly  was  not  to  be  so  easy  to  get  out  of 
again. 

"New  Year's  day  came  and  went  without  any  change  in 
the  ice. 

*Page  tS-U. 


I 


if. 

If- 


470 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


I,- 


"The  situation  noxv-  began  to  be  seriously  threatening. 
Another  winter  in  the  ice  would  mean  death  and  destruction 
on  a  large  scale.  Disease  and  insufficient  nourishment  would 
soon  make  an  end  of  most  of  the  ship's  'X)mpany. 

"Agair  Cook  came  to  the  aid  of  the  expedition. 

"In  conjunction  with  Racovitza  he  had  thought  out  a  very 
ingenious  way  of  sawing  a  channel,  and  thus  reachmg  the 
nearest  lead.  The  proposal  was  submitted  to  the  leader  of  the 
expedition  and  accepted  by  him;  l)oth  the  plan  and  the  method 
of  carrying  it  out  were  well  considered. 

"After  three  weeks'  hard  work,  day  and  night,  they  at 
last  reached  the  lead. 

"  Cook  was  incontestably  the  leading  spirit  in  this  work,  and 
gained  such  honour  among  the  members  of  the  expedition  that 
I  think  it  just  to  mention  it.  Upright,  honourable,  capable, 
and  conscientious  in  the  extreme — such  is  the  memory  we 
retain  of  Frederick  A.  Cook  from  those  days. 

"Little  did  h's  comrades  suspect  that  a  few  years  later  he 
would  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  humbugs  the  world 
has  ever  seen.  This  is  a  psychological  enigma  well  worth 
studying  to  those  who  care  to  do  so. " 

These  pages  may  offer  such  an  opportimity  for  study,  if 
not  to  solve  the  enigma.  This  is  sufficient  on  this  subject. 
Whether  the  omission  in  the  Encylopedia  Brittanica  of  Cook's 
achievements  in  the  Arctic  is  evidence  against  him,  depends,  I 
think,  entirely  upon  individual  opinion,  as  to  ''hat  is  histoiy, 
and  as  to  what  is  just  and  right. 

There  is  one  other  explorer  of  equal  distinction  with  Nansen 
who  intimates  (as  does  Nansen,  but  neither  boldly  says  so)  that 
he  also  discredits  Cook's  claims.  He  is  the  only  other  one  of 
whom  I  know.  He  also  as  is  usual  sustains  the  claims  of  Peaiy. 
I  will  noc  review  anything  that  this  explorer  has  written  about 
himself,  as  his  position  regarding  Cook  and  Peary  is  too  iiide- 
finite,  too  vague,  to  challenge.  If  either  of  these  two  distin- 
guished explorers  have  reasons  for  the  faith  that  is  in  them,  thqr 
ought  to  out  with  it.  I  know  of  no  two  men  whose  reasons  \l 
published  would  have  greater  influence  on  the  public  mind. 

At  all  events  I  have  endeavored  in  these  pages  to  give  them 
and  others  like  them  something  to  thmk  about.    If  I  have 


Condutioru 


471 


erred,  they  can  if  they  wish  point  out  wherein  I  have  done  so. 
If  I  have  seriously  erred;  either  as  to  Peary  or  Cook,  and  if  it 
should  be  of  sufficient  importance,  such  men  as  they  should  lay 
it  before  the  bar  of  history.  Arctic  exploration  is  entitled  to 
it.    Common  justice  is  entitled  to  it. 

There  is  always  a  time  when  only  one  mind  believes  in  the 
discovery  of  a  great  truth.  In  spite  of  a  general  unbelief  after 
long  and  careful  study,  it  is  my  sincere  conviction  that  there 
is  not  one  narrative  of  unwitnessed  polar  ezploraticm,  north  or 
south;  not  one  of  tropical  exploration,  east  or  west;  not  a 
story  of  a  mountain  climber,  or  of  a  deep  sea  diver  yet  written, 
that  is  more  entitled  to  credence,  or  that  will  better  stand  the 
test  of  close  analysis  and  synthesis,  than  Cook's  My  Attainment 
of  the  Pole. 

Cook's  narrative  has  been  before  the  public  many  years. 
It  has  been  subject  to  the  most  minute  scrutiny  that  invention, 
talent  and  money  c(Nild  give.  Not  one  important  feature  has 
been  truthfidly  discredited.  It  stands  unimpeached,  although 
bribery,  and  conspiraty  have  dtme  their  best.  A  f^mpitign 
of  infamy  has  been  waged,  and  has  spent  its  f(»ce;  but  not  one 
solitary  sentence  of  an  attempt  to  deceive  has  been  proved. 
Musk-ox  inventions,  starved  dogs,  fictitious  astronomical,  or 
other  calculations  may  have  some  efiFect  cm  popular  opinion; 
but  they  have  none  on  facts. 

Cook's  claim  to  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole,  I  rq>eat 
for  this  purpose  is  as  soimd  and  as  valid,  as  the  claim  of  Nansen 
to  his  Fartheet  North,  or  of  the  claim  Shackleton  made  to  his 
Farthest  South.  The  only  difference  is  in  the  nmtter  of  accept- 
ance of  the  stories  by  the  public,  and  this  is  largely  a  matter  of 
circumstances,  conditions  and  oivironments. 

Nansen  had  been  before  the  public  for  years,  and  was 
universally  recognized  as  a  man  of  probity  and  honor.  The 
same  in  all  respects,  wid  to  the  fullest  extent,  it  is  believed,  can 
truthfully  be  said  of  Shacklet<Hi.  Nevertheless,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  Nansen  and  Shackleton  were  both  in  some  measure, 
favorites  of  fortune — creatures  of  circumstance  and  conditioiis. 


l! 


472 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeovered 


mm 


as  are  all.  Who  was  in  position,  who  had  any  advene  interest, 
what  individual  was  disastrously  affected  by  Nansen's  or  by 
Shackleton's  great  achievement? 

But  suppose  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  19]  I,  that  Scott, 
a  man  renowned  for  uprightness  and  loftiness  of  character, 
who  was  then  in  the  Antarctic  in  quest  of  the  South  Pole, 
had  found  that  the  Fates  were  unpropitious.  That  accident, 
untoward  events,  or  some  fatality  had  caused  this  intrepia 
explorer  to  have  failed  in  his  mission.  Now  suppose  the 
impossible.  Suppose  him  to  have  had  the  temperament,  the 
disposition,  and  the  weaknesses  of  Peary.  Suppose  egotism, 
envy  and  jealousy,  to  have  been  in  him  uncontrollable  passions, 
over*riding  discretion,  unbalancing  judgment,  and  tincturing 
sincerity.  What  then?  Suppose  he  had  yielded  to  the  tempter, 
(impossible)  and  had  returned  alive  discrediting  the  narrative 
of  Shackleton  (evci  '  ough  on  land,  where  all  that  Shackleton 
has  cUimed  can  .  „  verified).  What  then?  Parties  would 
instantly  have  arisen;  a  Scott  Party;  a  ShacUeton  Party. 
Deception,  accusations,  falsehoods  would  have  filled  the  pages 
of  the  press.  The  controversy  thus  bom,  would  not  have 
died  out,  until  the  partisans  had  died  off.  Possibly  the 
death  of  both  explorers  would  have  occurred,  before  history 
oould  have  recorded  the  truth. 

All  history  attests  such  events  as  these.  Marco  Polo,  in 
many  respects,  the  greatest  of  travelers,  left  his  home  in  Italy 
in  the  twelfth  century,  disappearing  in  the  wilderness.  Twenty- 
five  years  later,  he  emerged,  surcharged  with  his  wonderful 
story  of  what  he  saw  and  heard,  in  far  off  Cathay.  His  tales 
were  so  strange,  so  astoimding,  that  they  challenged  credulity. 
Criticisms  arose  to  such  heights,  and  with  such  vehemence,  as 
to  overpower  him.  Having  no  means  of  proving  his  claims,  he 
died,  nicknamed,  dishonored,  discredited.  More  than  one 
hundred  years  elapsed  before  his  discoveries'  were  acknowledged. 
The  march  of  progress,  however,  gradually  raised  the  barriers 
between  the  Orient  and  the  Occident,  and  now  every  school 
child  knows  what  Polo  then  knew.     He  was  the  victim  of  cir- 


Conduaioru 


478 


cumsUnce  and  conditioni,  so  were   Hudion.    Magellan   and 
Columbus.    So  is  everybody. 

There  are  three  ways  a  discoverer  of  the  North  Pole  may 
prove  his  claim,  and  three  only:  Witnesses,  soundings,  land. 
Witnesses  are  necessarily  unsatisfactory.  Tbey  are  interested- 
they  are  biased.  They  are  passing  judgment  on  their  own  con- 
tention; but  if  of  high  character,  and  if  the  expedition  is  con- 
ducted with  lofty  motives,  devoid  of  mercenary  features,  they 
are  usually  accepted  without  question;  leaving  science  and 
time  to  check  and  confirm  or  to  doubt  and  diq>rove. 

In  the  case  of  Cook  a  novel  character  of  evidence  bj  wit- 
nesses, introduces  itself  which  makes  it  as  reliable  and  as  in- 
diaputoble,  as  a  geometrical  proposition.  It  is  spontaneous. 
It  does  not  rely  upon  veracity;  and  strangely  enough,  it  is 
unearthed  by  an  effort  to  smother  it.  Arctic  history  is  replete 
with  incidenU  of  surpassing  importance,  learned  through 
Eskimo  sources;  not  because  their  truthfubess  is  to  be  relied 
upon,  but  because  of  their  relation  to  facts,  which  bemg  in  their 
possession,  was  of  itself  powtive  evidence  of  truth. 

The  two  Cook  Eskimos,  and  the  four  Ptoary  Eskimos  have 
before  this,  aU  toW  their  several  stories  of  their  journeys  to 
their  neighbors  around  Etah,  the  facts  as  far  as  it  is  in  their 
power  to  convey  them  are  common  knowledge.  Future 
visitors  to  Etah  may  bring  them  back.  It  couW  now  be  done 
by  genuine,  impartial,  scientific  effort.  At  aU  events,  the 
whole  truth  as  to  both  explorers  will  in  time  undoubtedly  be 
known. 

Cook, fortunately  for  him  has  other  evidence,  beside  wit- 
nesses. He  says  he  discovered  Bradli^  Land.  The  most 
nortiierly  land  yet  seen  by  man.  On  that  discovery  alone, 
his  chum  may  rest.  Conspiracies,  university  decisions,  partisan* 
society  reports,  medals,  honors,  will  aU  tumble  and  fade,  when 
next  that  land  is  seen ;  and  if  it  is  there,  it  will  be  seen.  K  that 
land  exists,  as  Cook  describes  it,  the  rest  o2  his  story  will  doubt- 
leas  be  believed. 

Peary  having  elimmated  land  and  soundings,  with  his 


«74 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcorered 


witnesMfl  against  him,  tnusl  est  his  cbum  on  the  plausibility 
of  his  narrative  alone. 

Cook  has  another  claim,  perhaps  equal  in  force  to  his 
witnesses,  and  to  his  land  discoveiy.  It  is  the  discovery  <^ 
open  tea  at  the  Pole.  When  Cook  reached  civilization,  he  knevr 
it  was  but  a  few  days,  or  weeks  at  most,  when  Peary  would 
return,  possibly  to  flash  upon  the  world  the  news  that  his  own 
expedition  had  reached  the  Pole  and  to  announce  what?  Land? 
Or  sea?  Who  knows?  Who  could  possibly  know?  Yet  with 
a  confidence  seemingly  bom  of  genuine  integrity,  relying 
implicitly  upon  the  force  of  right,  and  truth.  Cook  declared; 
"  It  is  all  SEA  at  the  Pole.  Land  at  85*;  a  glacial  uland  between 
87  and  88  degrees;  sea  at  90  degrees;  smooth  ice;  an  endless 
field  of  purple  snow. "  On  one  of  these  monumental  facta  the 
discoverer  of  the  NORTH  POLE  may  be  known. 

It  may  not  be  positively  known,  whether  the  North  Pole 
has  been  discovered,  until  it  is  visited  by  others.  This  will  be 
done.  Stevansson  is  now  in  the  Arctic  with  three  ships. 
Amundsen  will  follow.  Aen^lanes  already  have  a  radius  of 
<^)eration  more  than  equal  to  the  distance  from  land  to  the 
Pole;  airships  more  than  twice  the  distance.  But  they  would 
not  need  this  radius,  because  suitable  landings  upon  ice  floes 
must  be  abundant  in  the  early  months.  A  Zeppelin  air  ship 
could  start  from  Norway  or  Russia  in  February  or  March,  and 
make  the  round  trip  to  the  Pole,  with  unquestioned  certainty. 
So  that  it  is  a  safe  prediction  that  the  North  Pole  will  be  vi' lied 
before  many  years,  and  all  the  conditions  and  phenomena 
surrounding  it  will  be  of  common  knowledge,  and  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  Cook's  claim  ..ill  be  established. 

Amundsen  with  his  reliable  From,  proposes  to  enter  the 
north  polar  ice  pack  '^orth  from  Alaska  in  the  summer  of  1916, 
in  the  expectation  i  t  the  drifting  pack  will  carry  his  impris- 
oned ship  across  the  Arctic  Ocean  in  the  vicinity  of  the  North 
Pole,  and  emerge  in  course  of  five  years,  north  of  the  Atlantic, 
in  the  Greenland  Sea.  If  his  prediction  be  verified,  his  ship 
will  be  in  the  vicinity  of  the  North  Pole  in  the  summw  ok 


IT 


ConelunoH$ 


475 


perhaps  the  winter  of  1917.  He  will  Uke  with  him  dogs  and 
.sledges,  aroeplanes  and  wireless  facilities.  He  will  have  the 
most  perfect  equipment  known  to  modem  science  for  making 
his  venture  a  success.  Little  doubt  exists,  that  if  he  lives,  and 
his  ship  survives,  and  his  prediction  is  sound,  he  will  visit  the 
Pole.* 

The  fates  may  have  already  decreed  that  the  discoverer 
of  the  South  Pole  is  destined  to  »«  also  the  discoverer  of  the 
North  Pole;  or  possibly  it  may  be,  that  the  fates  have  so  decreed, 
that  as  Scott  has  vouched  for  him,  he  in  turn  is  to  vouch  for 
Cook. 

When  Amundsen  er^erges,  or  before  emerging  if  his  wireless 
rommunication  is  operaU%'e,  or  when  some  avi  '  "  Wsits  the 
Pole  he  will  undoubtedly  have  a  message,  whic.  ."I  have  the 
effect,  as  if  of  sharpened  steel,  of  digging  a  deep  grave;  in  which 
will  be  buried  the  claim,  the  name,  the  honor  of  Fredtrick  A. 
Cook.  Over  that  grave  will  rest  a  monument,  inscribed  with 
the  record  of  his  shame.  Or  else  that  message,  as  if  from  Auster- 
litz,  will  read  that  the  snowy  hood  of  Bradley  Land,  still  mI- 
houettes  the  arctic  sky;  or  that  a  glacial  island  further  north 
still  holds  its  moorings;  or  that  at  the  boreal  center  of  the  globe, 
the  drifting  pack  still  continues  its  eternal  course.  Should 
this  message  be  even  but  a  part  of  the  latter  tale;  and  even 
though  it  come  after  Cook  has  passed  away;  there  will  surely 
arise  in  history,  a  gigantic  Hgure;  towering,  like  Chimborazo 
above  the  clouds.  Then  all  the  world  will  likely  say,  "  Go  take 
your  kingdom.  You  have  conquered  all.  You  have  won  a 
victory,  even  over  death.  The  trail  that  you  have  described 
over  that  trackless  crystal  solitude,  will  be  a  familiar  scene  Li 
the  thoughts,  and  in  the  day  dreams,  of  ages  and  ages  of  ad- 
mirers. " 

u^?i  ""^^  '  '***'  "'  Arctic  curreotfl,  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  pUce 
north  of  AksLa  where  Amundsen  can  entsr  the  !~  far  »u>«igh  north  with  hL 
ship  and  drift  across  the  Pble.  But  Amundsen  has  been  in  those  waters  and  if 
be  ttamks  there  is  a  chance  and  he  attempU  it,  and  lives,  he  will  visit  the  Pole. 


i?'i 


'in. 


St 


n 

." 

'4^ 

'i 

.t- 

1' 

APPENDIXES 


ilf^ 


M^ 

ii 

',1^^ 


^ 

n 


im 


1 1  * 


Wi 


APPENDIX  I 

ANALYSIS  OF  MR.  PEARY'S  POLAR  STATEMENTS 

By  W.  J.  Armbruster 

Section  I 

Mr.  Peary's  own  words,  covering  all  the  statements  to 
be  analyzed,  pages  287  and  288  of  his  book,  are: 

"The  last  march  northward  ended  at  ten  o'clock  on  the 
forenoon  of  April  6.  After  the  usual  arrangements  jr  going 
into  camp,  at  approximate  local  noon,  of  the  Columbia  n.oridian, 
I  made  the  first  observation  at  our  polar  camp.  It  indicated 
our  position  as  89"  57'. " 

"Everything  was  in  readmess  for  an  observation  at  6  p.  m., 
Columbia  meridian  time,  in  case  the  sky  should  be  clear,  but 
at  that  hour  it  was  unfortunately,  still  overcast.  But  as  there 
were  indications  that  it  would  clear  before  long,  two  of  the 
Eskunos  and  myself  made  ready  a  light  sledge  carrying  only  the 
instruments,  a  tin  of  pemmican.  and  one  or  two  skins;  and 
drawn  by  a  double  team  of  dogs,  we  pushed  on  an  estimated 
distance  of  ten  miles.  While  we  traveled,  ihe  sky  cleared,  and 
at  the  end  of  the  journey,  I  was  able  to  get  a  satisfactory  series 
of  r.'     -vation  at  Columbia  meridian  midnight. " 

vas  hard  to  realize  that,  in  the  first  miles  of  this  brief 
ii  ive  had  been  traveling  due  north,  while,  on  the  last  few 

If  !'  the  same  march,  we  had  been  traveling  south,  although 
we  hid  all  the  time  been  traveling  in  precisely  the  same 
direction. " 

"Again,  please  consider  the  imcommon  circumstances  that 
in  order  to  return  to  our  camp,  it  now  became  necessary  to 
turn  and  go  north  again  for  a  few  miles  and  then  to  go  directly 
south,  all  the  time  traveling  in  the  same  direction. " 

"At  six  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  April  7,  having  again 
arrived  at  Camp  Jessup,  I  took  another  series  of  observations. 
These  indicated  our  position  as  being  four  or  five  miles  from 

470 


m 
It' 

ii', ;: 


480 


Ea$  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeooered 


the  Pole,  towards  Behring  Strait.  Therefore,  with  a  doubit 
team  of  dogs  and  a  light  sledge,  I  traveled  directly  towards  tht 
sun  an  estimated  distance  of  eight  miles.  Again  I  returned 
to  the  camp  in  time  for  a  final  and  completely  satisfactory 
series  of  observations  on  April  7,  at  noon,  Columbia  meridian 
time.  These  observations  gave  results  essentially  the  same  a« 
those  made  at  the  spot  twenty-four  hours  before. " 

If  Mr.  Peary  was  on  the  Columbia  Meridian  in  camp  at 
"A,"*  Latitude  89°  57'  North,  and  traveled,  as  he  says,  ten 
miles  beyond  along  that  meridian,  then  returned  along  the  same 
line  to  camp  at  "A,"  then  traveled  8  miles  at  right  angles  to  the 
meridian  toward  the  sun,  his  route  would  have  been  as  desig- 
nated by  the  red  lines,  from  A  to  1  to  A  to  2  to  A. 

We  cannot  accept  any  part  of  this  route  as  having  been 
traversed,  or  that  the  camp  was  ever  located  at  A,  or  that  Mr. 
Peary  was  ever  at  A,  for  the  following  reasons : 

(a.)  The  part  of  the  route  1  to  A  to  2  to  A  must  at  once 
be  discarded,  for,  according  to  Mr.  Peary,  upon  retivning  to 
camp  18  hours  after  he  first  left  it  and  after  making  several 
observations  he  gives  the  location  of  the  camp  as  "four  or  five 
miles  from  the  Pole  towards  Behring  Strait,"  which  would 
locate  the  camp  as  at  "B."  If  the  camp  was  at  B  and  not  at  A, 
the  return  from  1  to  the  camp  would  have  been  1  to  B. 

(b.)  If  Mr.  Peary  had  thought,  or  believed  he  was  at  A, 
or  that  he  traveled  north  on  that  meridian  to  the  Pole  and 
beyond  seven  miles,  the  most  natural  thing  that  he  or  any  other 
explorer  would  have  done  upon  returning  from  1  to  A  would 
have  been  to  cross  the  Meridian  he  was  on  at  right  angles  at  the 
90th  or  Pole  latitude,  two  or  three  miles  to  each  side  of  it,  for 
instance,  between  "D"  and  "E."  No  explorer,  believing  he 
was  on  the  Columbia  Meridian  at  1,  and  moving  along  that 
meridian  to  A,  'tut  would  have  crossed  the  meridian  at  right 
angles;  at  the  Pole  latitude,  or  made  some  observations  in  the 
vicinity  of  that  latitude,  when  he  reached  it  either  going  from 
A  to  1  or  while  retummg  from  1  to  A. 

(c.)  Mr.  Peary  and  Camp  Jessup  were  never  at  A,  if, 
upon  his  return  to  it  he  found,  upon  taking  further  observations, 
that  it  was  at  B,  unless  it  had  moved  from  A  to  B  during  the 
interval  of  18  hours  from  the  time  he  first  left  camp  until  he 
returned  to  it,  that  is,  between  the  two  periods  of  observations. 
In  considering  whether  the  proposition  of  the  movement  of 
the  massive  central  polar  ice  6)4  miles  from  A  to  B  in  less  than 
'Diagram  16. 


A  [tf^mctur    I 


481 


'  >  iixn  \,i'  af.i^ptr.!  om-  inu'^t  <  irffnlK  weifih  Mr.  IVar\''s 
■  'aloiiitMit.  Ilia!  filtltr.ui;!,'  hi^  ohsf-rvatiofiK  ,(  6  ,i  m  of 
IT.  sIu.vv.h!  fli.-  <iHn(.  ^M,.  .,t   »,  f](,  ,f  vvhm  In-  '.-ft   H  and 

<<i  8  riuU'-  iowiini  111.'  'iiji!  .1,.  ♦iif^Hsf.  ar..l  i>»fiirr.o.|  fo  the 
;  ii-  <.l>s.M  v,;f  icn*.  tal«Mi  jif  f..x„i  ,.f  t|.f  Sinn.-  'Uiy.  tlicrHoro 
Ml  vix  hours  «lfpr  hi-  iTioruirit:  nKsen  utMins.  n!;io.>«i  f  iv  cat'in 


■>!i    VVllOl'Vfi    u 


along  l!) 

\\a  -(Is   1   he  ii)U> 
T\(Tjix-  -trrmgiy  lo  t 
I    ICC  to  til'   Irf!.  r.ijt  ti. 


'la.l  iir  s,,  k-MiK.,!  strong,  lu  Uw  r  (/j,;  «,,  aiiik,  punu  i 
'!-'M>ly  f..  hoiti  f,;  fl„.  Colmyhia  M.Tidian.  in  ti„,t  ca«e. 
ii;-  bjowk-ilge  of  the  rapid  inovt-rornt  of  jir  i--*  .  ,.n  !  ht^' 
■ra.  li  thf  U'f-  \v;is  .still  ...ovinj;  us  the  ^aiij**  utr.»fiion.  he  woiiid 
fiare  nifne.l  ai  .ng  «  siraight  line  U»Wimis  A,  l>»i  uould  have 
•  ■'1  towards  B}  hI  a  \er>  siiarp  angle  from  his  posiiuH)  at  1 
I'v.d  oif  and  '.H.h  )ht>  ramp  al   B      But  according  lu  ,\fr 


V'   riit>iu<j 


in...  A,. I 


.1         ;!,.,       I)         •  _...-      ^. 


in  fiict  lutsuvs  to  th 


t  IV*.    tui  V 


ITm::, 


*■■  A.     It  i,s  t 


n'ccio'rarj.-.  that  he  returned  in  a  d)r<»c» 


Tiic  tujf    h«'  s.-iys  that  u 


.    ■  K 


|h^ 


fKJii  rctuinir  K  to  cain|( 


480 


Uax  the  Wirlh  Poh  IS'^t'-i  I    .tr-'-rr/'d 


ihc  l'ol<\  to'Aftnis  Htlir  iJiju'  S!i-;ti1.  ''' i't-'^  mo,  -.viiJi  a,  d'Miitl. 
team  <*r  <ltr^-.  .nui  ;i  light  si<xi;;»-.  i  ln've'<  i  ■li'^H\'"  tow;ni{.s  tli<' 
sun  an  fslimatfd  (li-l.ijrirc  of  ciifhl  .iii'  ,  \ii;.mii  I  rt^tumed 
lo  tli'-  <;tr!ij»  in  linn  t\r  :i  fiim!  :%i,d  c<tTii{il(  ti'ly  siitisfitctory 
sf-rici  I'f  <«!i-or\  alioMS  oxi  April  7,  at  ncM^tj,  C'lliiuiKiii  liKTuliari 
ittit',  'I'he.He  ohMTXiitioiis  gnvc  r- >!iU>  f.sHt'iiti.iiU'  tlic  -  .in<'  •  .' 
fhnsc  m.-ulc  .'if  thf  <i"il  twenty  four  hour^  hrfor*-. " 

m   r*  n  I"  ,T 


1:1*"'  '•'fP*V  W(^T"!T ' 
fiated  h%- 
pr:iv< 


o  Ihe/PcAf  arij. 

he  nj/:xn\  oth« 

l/'t'  A  woul 

iii^ie5>  at  t! 

i  »!(!o  of  it,  f 

<>r»r.  hciicviiig  K 

moving  along  tfia 
■  |.^|    j  ;...   ,..t^.-..ii..^  ^* 

!<i".  (ir  !i:.;ur  ..•■;!•  ,!,, Pi  \  aSions  iii  th=- 
\i<-iiii<  '  that  Irttiiiiilt.  vvlicn  !i.-  rt.arhtd  it  fithfr  pniug  fms? 
A  '     1  mt  v.  hi|(>  rrtnrniiii'  iVi-ry  1  t<i  A 

(r  )  Mr  iVar:'  and  (^-'np  ,Jf>.sup  v  <rt:  iumt  at  A,  1/ 
■li.nn  his-  .('lurn  to  i!  he  !<<ufi«i.  T.pot;  takiii^  tu.'ther  ..)l>sor\ation« 
'I  at  A  \s,,'-  .  ?  15.  iiiilf--  it  had  iiiovr.',  froin  A  to  R  durinp  tb 
iiifc-'-ai  of  Ih  iiMtjrs  fiom  tlif  liirii^  hr  Rr-s!.  Wt  rauip  until  h 
!'tiiuied  to  i'.  that  is.  ;..  tu<''n  the  f\v<;  pmiotis  of  oiwervation.* 

Ui»»  mas.siv',-  mitral  polar  iff  «>' ,  iini^'s  fn.ni  A  t"  }*.  in  los  th«M' 


Appendix  I 


481 


i-'- 


18  hours  can  be  accepted  one  must  carefully  weigh  Mr.  Peary's 
other  statement,  that  although  his  observations  at  6  a.  m  of 
Apnl  7,  showed  the  camp  was  at  B,  that  when  he  left  B  and 
traveled  8  miles  toward  the  sun  (to  the  east)  and  returned  to  the 
camp,  his  observations,  taken  at  noon  of  the  same  day,  therefore 
withm  SIX  hours  after  his  morning  observations,  placed  the  camp 
agam  at  A.  The  camp,  then,  according  to  Mr.  Peary  was  at 
A  at  noon  of  April  6,  it  was  at  B  at  6  a.  m.  of  the  7th,  (18  hours 
later)  and  again  at  A  at  noon  of  the  7th  (six  hours  later.) 

Fust,  we  can  well  reject  the  proposition  that  such  wide  and 
contrary  rapid  movements  of  the  massive  central  polar  ice 
occurred. 

Second,  if  the  ice  had  moved  in  the  direction  A  to  B  and 
1  to  5,  say  in  two-thirds  of  the  time  noon  April  6  to  6  a.  m.  April 
7,  that  u,  up  to  midnight  April  6,  it  moved  from  A  to  F,  which 
IS  two-thirds  the  distance  to  B,  the  sun  at  midnight  Columbia 
meridian  time  would  not  have  been  at  6,  in  line  with  the  direction 
t  to  6,  a  line  paralleling  A  to  1  and  B5.  The  st-n  would  have 
passed  the  point  6  long  before  midnight  of  hi^  chronometer 
Columbia  Meridian  time,  about  11  p.  m.,  and  not  at  midnight, 
and  this  would  at  once  have  warned  him  that  he  was  not  on  the 
Columbia  meridian,  as  he  says.  If  he  took  an  observation  at 
midnight  the  sun  would  not  have  been  in  his  front,  but  at  a 

"i**^]*  ^5°^     ^^^  *^®  ''°®  ^®  ^*y*  ^«  ^*«  on.     Third,  instead 

of  Mr.  P^ry  traveling  in  a  straight  line  from  A  towards  the 

Fole  and  beyond,  to  position  1,  his  line  of  travel  would  have 

been  the  equivalent  of  A  to  6,  and  in  this  case  he  would  have 

known  that  he  was  not  traveling  in  a  straight  line  along  the 

Columbia  Meridian,  but  at  a  wide  angle  from  it  towards  the 

left,  to  6,  or,  if  he  traveled  in  a  straight  line  towards  1  he  must 

have  found  it  necessary  to  continually  diverge  strongly  to  the 

right  to  overcome  the  movement  of  the  ice  to  the  left,  but  no 

mention  whatever  of  such  an  important  circumstance  is  made, 

and  had  he  so  leaned  strongly  to  the  right  to  make  pomt  1. 

purposejy  to  hold  to  the  Columbia  Meridian,  in  that  case, 

having  knowledge  of  the  rapid  movement  of  the  ice,  on  the 

return,  if  the  ice  was  still  moving  in  the  same  direction,  he  would 

not  have  moved  along  a  straight  line  towards  A.  but  would  have 

headed  towards  B,  at  a  very  sharp  angle  from  his  position  at  1, 

to  head  off  wid  reach  the  camp  at  B.    But  according  to  Mr. 

feaxy  himself  he  did  not  do  this,  nor  does  he  make  any  mention 

of  It.  m  fact  he  says  fxt  the  contrary,  that  he  returned  in  a  direct 

line  to  A.    It  IS  true  that  he  says  that  upon  returning  to  camp 


m 
m 


'I 


■.  ■ ' 


48S 


Hot  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeovered 


W: 


the  camp  was  at  B.  But  that  is  not  the  point.  The  point  is 
that  according  to  his  own  statement  he  returned  on  the  same 
line  from  1  to  the  camp  that  he  set  out  on  from  the  camp  to  1. 
If  the  Ccunp  was  at  B  when  he  returned  to  it  then  his  statement 
is  not  true.  If  the  camp  was  at  B  when  he  returned  to  it  then 
he  did  not  "turn  and  go  north  again  for  a  few  miles  and  then  go 
directly  south"  as  he  says,  but  must  have  cut  across  the  north 
and  south  lines  at  an  angle  of  about  40  degrees,  or  else,  if  he 
went  directly  north  and  south  again,  as  he  says,  then  he  wouldn't 
have  found  the  camp  at  A  where  he  would  have  returned,  but 
would  have  had  to  chase  west  in  the  direction  of  B,  a  quarter 
way  round  the  horizon  to  catch  up  with  it,  oi  if  the  ice  at 
position  1  had  moved  to  6  at  the  same  time  it  mc  'ed  from  A  to 
F,  then  again  none  of  the  statements  of  Mr.  >ary  on  this 
particular  question  would  be  correct,  for  the  ime  returning 
from  1  would  not  have  been  north,  and  no  part  whatever  of  it, 
stopping  as  it  does  at  B,  would  have  been  in  a  direction  to  the 
south  of  the  Pole.  Yet  Mr.  Peary  says  even  now,  after  months 
of  preparation  for  the  statements  made  in  his  book: 

"it  now  became  necessary  to  turn  and  go  north  again  for  a  few 
miles  and  then  go  directly  south,  all  the  time  traveling  in  the 
same  direction." 

Fourth,  if  the  ice  had  moved  from  A  towards  B,  but  swing- 
ing around  with  the  axis  of  rotation  at  the  pole  or  some  point 
between  it  and  1,  then  Mr.  Peary's  statement  would  be  even 
more  erroneous,  unless  proper  correction  for  the  enormous 
movement  of  the  ice  was  made,  and  instead  of  being  at  1,  and 
facing  the  midnight  sun  quarter  of  the  horizon  at  G  at  midnight 
of  his  chronometer,  he  would  have  been  somewhere  between  the 
pole  and  the  horizon  at  H,  and  facing  the  horizon  in  the  direction 
of  the  6  a.  m.  quarter  of  the  sun  at  H.  If  he  had  moved  in  a 
straight  line  celestial  towards  1,  a  radical  turning  movement 
from  a  straight  line  would  have  been  necessary  to  arrive  at  the 
position  1  equivalent  to  the  Columbia  Meridian  and  in  line 
with  the  midnight  sun  meridian.  So  radical  a  turning  move- 
ment would  be  astounding,  and  such  an  experience  on  Uie  part 
of  an  explorer  would  certainly  have  brought  forth  some  comment 
or  reference  to  it.  But  there  is  none.  And  further,  a  complex 
diversion  from  a  straight  line  between  1  and  A  would  have  been 
necessary  to  reach  the  camp  at  B.  If  Mr.  Peary  did  not  know 
of  the  immense  movement  of  the  ice  in  the  direction  A  to  B  he 


Apptndix  I 


488 


would  not  have  arrived  at  1  but  at  a  point  about  J,  between  the 
pole  and  the  horizon  at  H,  and  his  observation  of  the  sun  at 

«  u"Ti  i'^""'**  "°*  *'*^®  '^"  °"  *^«  Columbia  Meridian. 
If  he  did  know  of  it  he  must  have  made  a  tremendous  turning 
movement  to  overcome  the  movement  of  the  ice  to  arrive  at  1 
where  he  would  be  on  the  Columbia  Meridian  at  midnight,  and 
of  this  great  turning  movement  some  comment  would  have  been 
made.  But  there  is  none.  Even  .so,  in  neither  case  would  he 
have  traveled,  on  returning,  fiist  north  and  then  south  along  the 
Columbia  Meridian  to  reach  the  camp,  but  in  the  first  instance 
he  would  have  traveled  square  across  the  meridian  and  in  the 
.second  at  an  angle  of  about  40  degrees  across  the  north  and 
south  lines. 

Fifth,  considering  now  all  these  complexities  in  con- 
nection with  the  other  that  at  noon  of  April  7,  six  hours  after 
0  a.  m.  of  the  7th,  when  the  camp  was  at  B,  it  is  now  again  at  A. 
that  in  the  six  hours  from  6  a.  m.  to  noon  of  the  same  day  the 
ice  has  rushed  back  from  B  to  A,  a  distance  of  6W  miles,  yet 
there  IS  not  a  word  by  Mr.  Peary  that  there  was  any  movement 
at  all  of  the  ice. 

Every  probability  that  the  camp  was  ever  at  A,  that  Mr 
feary  was  ever  at  that  position,  or  that  any  part  of  the  route 
outlined  was  traversed  must  be  rejected.  And  this  rejection 
must  apply  a^  well  to  the  location  of  the  camp  at  B  after  the 
return  from  the  ten  mile  journey,  for,  m  the  face  of  the  circum- 
stances given,  the  location  of  the  camp  at  B  after  the  return  is 
complete^  unpugned.  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  less 
than  SIX  hours  later  the  massive  polar  sea  ice  has  rushed  back 
with  the  camp  to  A. 

Section  II 

We  may  now  consider  whether  Camp  Jessup  was  at  B  at 
noon  of  Apnl  6,  instead  of  at  A.  Mr.  Peary  states  that  Camp 
Jessup  was  on  the  Columbia  Meridian,  so  on  that  statement 
alone  Camp  Jessup  was  not  at  B.  We  may  consider  however 
whether  the  camp  was  at  B,  perhaps  mistakenly  thought  by 
Mr.  Peary  to  be  on  the  Columbia  Meridian.  ^        ^        ^ 

U  Mr.  Peaiy  was  at  B  at  noon  of  April  6,  instead  of  at  A 
as  he  supposed  and  thought  he  was  on  the  Columbia  Meridian, 
and  moved  forward  along  the  line  of  what  he  supposed  was  the 
Columbia  Meridian  ten  miles  in  the  same  direction,  then  his 
route,  mcludmg  the  8  miles  at  a  right  angle  to  the  east  from  the 


m 


484 


Ha$  the  North  Pole  Btm  Dieoovered 


St**-..:     k- 


camp  at  B  would  have  been  as  shown  by  the  violet  lines,  from 
B  to  8  to  B  to  4  to  B. 

This  must  be  rejected  for  the  following  reasons: 
(a.)     Mr.  Peary  makes  the  statement  in  his  book,  page 
289,  after  months  of  preparation  thereof,  that  "it  was  hard  to 
realize  that,  in  the  first  miles  of  this  brief  march  (ten  miles 
beyond  Camp  Jessup,)  we  had  been  traveling  due  north  while, 
on  the  last  few  miles  of  the  same  march  we  had  been  traveling 
south,  although  we  had  been  traveling  precisely  in  the  same 
direction."     If  Camp  Jessup  was  at  B  and  Mr.  Peary  traveled 
north  from  B  the  first  few  miles  of  the  ten  miles  out  from  B, 
then  he  did  not  travel  from  B  to  8,  for,  immediately  upon 
leaving  B  going  towards  8  he  would  have  been  going  south,  not 
north.    He  would  not  have  been  going  towards  the  Pole  but 
away  from  it.    To  have  gone  towards  the  Pole  from  B,  Mr. 
Peary  would  have  found  it  necessaiy  to  have  turned  fully  180 
degrees  to  the  right  of  the  line  of  his  supposed  Columbia  Meri- 
dian, more  than  a  right  about  face  from  the  line  of  the  sun  he 
had  just  observed,  more  than  a  third  around  of  the  whole  circle 
of  horizon,  more  than  a  right  angle,  a  right  angle  being  90  degrees 
«id  this  turn  to  the  right  would  have  required  180  degrees. 
But  Mr.  Peary  says  he  continued  in  the  same  direction,  which 
would  have  been  towards  the  position  marked  8.    This  elim- 
mates  any  likelihood  that  Mr.  Peary  might  have  turned  more 
than  a  right  angle  and  moved  along  the  Behring  Strait  >i.,rid- 
ian  from   B   to  the  Pole  and  beyond  in  that  direction.  Also, 
had  he  done  this  the  midnight  sun  would  not  have  been  opposite 
hun  at  K  but  at  G  a  quarter  way  round  the  horizon,  as  will  be 
more  fully  explained  later,  and  a  right  angle  to  this  line  after 
his  return  to  B  would  have  been  from  B  to  7,  which  is  out  of  the 
<]^uestion.     Bui  Mr.  Peary's  other  stetement  is  that  his  observa- 
tion after  his  return  to  Camp  Jessup  from  the  ten  miles'  journey 
was  in  the  direction  of  his  observation,  at  6  a.  m. — towards  the 
sun,  yet  the  journey  of  8  miles  towards  the  sun  would  not  have 
been  taken  in  this  instance  either,  for  he  would  have  just  re- 
turned from  that  direction  on  the  return   from  the  ten  miles 
journey,  had  he,  after  first  arriving  at  B,  moved  from  B  towards 
the  Pole  and  beyond. 

There  is  a  very  unsatisfactory  contradiction  or  conflict 
m  the  statements  made  by  Mr.  Peary  in  Hampton's  for  August 
1910,  and  what  Mr.  Peary  says  in  his  book  on  the  subject,  of  the 
Ime  of  his  route  when  he  returned  to  the  camp  from  his  observa- 
tion at  Columbia  Meridian  midnight.  In  August  HawptorCa 
Ir.  Peary  says: 


Appendix  I 


"6  a.  m.  At  Camp  Jeifup,  I  took  another  aeries  of  observa- 
tions, ai  right  angles  to  thoee  previouely  made." 

In  his  book,  given  out  after  long  preparation,  Mr.  Peary's 
statement  is  as  folk>ws: 

"6  a.  m. — At  six  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  April  7,  having 
again  arrived  at  Camp  Jesup,  I  took  another  series  of  observa- 
tions. " 

The  veiy  vital  assertion  in  the  first  statement  "at  right 
angles  to  thoee  previouely  made"  is  abandoned  and  left  out  in  the 
second  statement,  evidently  for  a  very  good  reason,  for  the 
observation  is  taken  from  the  sun  and  the  eun  at  that  time  uhu 
not  at  a  right  angle  from  the  pretioue  obeervaHon  whether  made 
from  B  or  A,  tat  a  right  angle  from  B  would  be  B  to  4,  a  right 
angle  from  A  would  be  A  to  2,  whereas  the  sun  was  at  that  time 
at  H,  the  6  a.  m.  qiuuter  of  the  sun. 

Again,  in  August  Hampton's  Mr.  Peary  says 

"Then  I  went  in  the  direction  of  my  observations  an  esti- 
mated distance  of  eight  miles. "  Whereas  the  statement  in  the 
book  reads 

"/  traveled  directly  toward  the  sun,  an  estimated  distance  of 
eight  miles. " 

I'hese  statements  taken  it  connection  each  with  its  preced- 
mg  are  totally  incompatible.  If  the  camp  were  at  B,  where  Mr. 
Pearv  located  it  after  a  series  of  observations,  the  eight  miles  at 
a  right  angle  to  the  line  of  observation  B  to  C  would  be  B  to  4, 
whereas  a  line  directly  towards  the  sun  from  B  would  be  on  a 
line  drawn  between  B  and  H,  as  t^u^  is  the  6  a.  m.  quarter  of 
the  sun  Columbia  Meridian  tinit.  So  wide  an  error  is  not 
conceivable.  The  simplest  observation  of  the  compass,  or  the 
chronometer,  or  an  angle  mirror,  or  the  position  of  tie  sun, 
would  have  ob'-'-^ted  it. 

(b.)  Ml  .  dry  says  in  his  book,  page  289,  referring  to  the 
ten  mile  journey  beyond  Camp  Jesup  : 

"And  at  the  end  of  the  journey,  I  was  able  to  get  a  satis- 
factory series  of  observations  at  Columbia  Meridian  midnight. " 

If  Mr.  Peary  had  traveled  in  the  same  direction  of  what  he 


, 


I 

'J. 

'5, 


if 

SI 

•  -■    J 
■-If 


If 


486 


//« the  North  Pols  Been  Durovered 


•'"Dpost.  was  the  Columbia  Meridian  from  B  to  S.  the  midmirht 
un.  Tolumbia  Moridian  time,  would  not  hav  •  been  in  his 
iront,     li  his  line,  but  would  have  pasned  him  lon^  before  U 
p.  m.  of  his  chronometer,  and  instead  of  thr  sun  at    nidniirht 
bem^  in  his  front  at  8  it  would  have  ».een  at  G.     The  sun  wodd 
have  passed  his  front,  or  lim    at  3.  about  9  p.  m..  and  that  alone 
would  -rstai.t.y  have  warned  him  that  he  hwf  not  divided  his 
honzc,  j^roj,   iy   that  he  wjui  not  on  the  Columbia  Meridian 
and  tluvi   ..un  ,)  Jessup  was  ut  the  apex  o'  m  uncniual  triangle 
whose  h«,^  \vu  ran  from  the  midnight  sun  at  G  to  tl.    in.suion 
of  th*  s  a.  K'  .  (M>n  Ht  C,  and  that  his  observation  at  •  o«a  of 
the  s.     o  ili-y  was  not  taken  on  the  Colun  '.ia  Meridian      Thi. 
would  iiav,.  bwn  .t  m-st  in.p<,rtant  fact  i^  .is  observation     vet 
no  m.-T   ..,n    ..a  is  n  ,de.     If  was  the  1   art.  the  center,"  th^ 
very  e>sence.  the  most  important  of  all  o.    ny  obvervraion  that 
could  have  beer  n,.  ieat  the  Pole,  for  upon  the  accurate  location 
of  the  Ime  of  longnude  d  -pends  the  safe  return  of  an  explorer 
from  that  region.     Had  Mr.  Peaiy  made  any  observation  from 
the  position  3  he  woul«!  not  have  sai<l  Uiut  fie  was  able  to  get  a 
satisfiictory  obsen;,     .n.  let   Joi.e  a  ierie,  i.f  them,  at  Columbia 
Mendxan  mtdmght.     It  is  not  th.'  question  whether  he  could 
have  taken  an  altitude  of  the  mn  from  that  point      If  he  ha.^ 
been  at  that  point  it  is  admitted  that  an  altiturl     of  tli     sun 
couliJ  have  been  taken  if  the  sun     us  not  obscurt...     The  fact 
IS  that  at  that  point  he  u  as  not  at  (  olmnbia  Meridian  midnight, 
and  If  the  camp  wa.s  at    '  and  he  had  mistaken  that  position  as 
the  Columbia  Meridian  a.   i  went  <m  in  the  same  directif      his 
observations  were  not,  as  i  e  says     .«  Columbia  Meridian  mid- 
ntgnt, 

(c.)     Mr.  Peary  siiys.  in  Hampton  a  for  AuKust,  the 

"When  I  had  taken  '  .v  observation  at  Cnn. 
Western  Hemisphere  at  noon  of  April  H.  Colun 
time,  the  sun  had  been  in  the  south.     Whe  s  I  hax] 
servations  at  midnight  between    he  6th  and  7th  a 
ten  miles  march,  in  the  Ea-sten.  Hemisphere,  th 
south  at  that  point  " 

These  two  stalements,  ju-  quote*!,  are  mn 
Mr.  Peary  m  his  book.     If  Mr.  Pear\  t.ad  bee-i  a 
Apnl  6.  Columbia  Meridian  tune,  ih>  mn  would 
tn  the  south.     At  noon  of  the  .iav  Columbia  Meria 
sun  would  have  i)eeri  at  C.  «  lereas  tout     ^rom  th 


essup  in 

iken 

'iec!i, 
m  was 


;aii 

•b- 

nv 

'fit 


reiteratea 
B  at  noon  o 
i  have  been 
a  time  tbft 
position   it 


'^■.. 


ti  IS  at  I..     It,  according  to  M     Pear:     he  *un  w  »s  in  the  soutu 


ipptmdu  I 


487 


that  t  nie  was  5.tO  a.  m.  Coluuibia  Meridian 


AnrM  ft"  f^  ,'k  "*'  '**"^'l  "*  "?*"  Columbia  Meridian  time 
April  ft  then  the  tiuiip  couJd  not  have  b-  n  at  B.  for  the  sun 
wnyut  .n  thf  ^»th  fr,.m  B  at  noon  Coh.  abia  Meridian  time. 
H  Uie  01  wvj.ti.  ,.  wa-  talv -n  at  noon,  an  stated  bv  Mr.  Peary. 
t7  Kr  '  1^^.  ^hich.  from  B.  ism,  0/  ....  not  sm^S 
and  ..uth.  '>  Ht  that  t.nie  was  5.«0  a.m.  Colui  ""  " 
time,  it  IS  hilt  fail 
hJmseif.  that  a^  thr 
at  Uf  hvji  tb*  tica 
always  '-ui'i  b,  t  '■■ 
<  tbe  h  ,  on  is  ♦■.ist 
ht. 
If  the  I  jnp 
n  he  n-'-  .me- 
•  locati<  !  of  1 
need  to  <.« -wi  1 
o  B  'vn  travti  -«d 
■if  th 
from 
8  to  f 


^u  assertu.    to  say.  as  Mr.  Peary  indulfei 
Pole  m  evr      direction  is  south.    Stan^g 
pole  and  looki  ig  t.wai      the  horizon  is 
f     of  the  line  of  vision  extending 
cast  on  the  left,  and  west  on  the 


Id 

tat» 


wh 
1  t 
is  1 
o  4 

am) 
use 
^     «. 

tuwar  is 
*ound  hill 

1"  th  th< 
following 
allnosi 

do 

an       -« 
hai 
it  foil 

nad  I. 


ith. 
r  w 

jor  sf 


.m: 


'fther,  nor 

ier  section 

-.iicd)  there 


when  he  left  it  to  r 
ling  to  ^heanaJysis 
B  is  '     npletelv  imp  ^.__,  .„^ 

the       tion  of  the  r«)»ite  from  A 
urth.       'om  6  a.  m.  of  the  7th  to 
ne  d       till   ,>olar  s,        e  has  rushed  with  the 
A        1  the  camp  i.s  now  at  A  again,  so  it  is 
'   n^  der  w  .ether  the  rout-  B  to  4  to  R  was  made 
have  been  made  even  according  to  Mr.  Peary's 
t      He  could  not  have  traveled  8  mles  from  B 
aiu.  returned  along  the  same  line  U 
elf  at  A,  or,  if  he  was  following  a  i 
in  and  the  compass  would  have  .s' 
line,  due  to  the  movement  of  the  <. 
qui^  alent  of  J  to  A,  to  return  to  A 
iiovcmer      of  positions  terrestrial  would  h. 
>'"   er's  L   ,t  wits  and  observation  to  have  veu  m 

i  oroa--  oned  lengthy  comment,  yet  not  a  Aord  abouf 
Air.  reary. 

)     It  IS  not  worth  while  to  consider,  even  if  Mr  Peary 

m^.  fi^™*!?'  ^^^^^^  th*  j:™  "?i'«  iourney  might  have  been 
made  from  B  onward  in  a  direction  toward  5,  for  this  would 
'lot  ^ye  been  contmumg  in  the  same  direction  of  the  observa- 
t.  n  B  .    C,  and  further,  aU  the  o/gument  against  the  route  B  to 

mid  effectually  apply  agamst  this  assumption  as  well. 

(•  1  he  only  feature  left  for  consideration  is,  whether  an 
e.  rer,  «mg  at  B.  could,  with  the  sun  at  C  at  noon  CoIumbU 
M  u!  in  time,  have  mistaken  his  position  at  B  to  be  on  the 
U3i-unii,ia  Meridian  at  A.  especiaUy  if  an  explorer  came  up  on 
the  Columbia  Meridian,  and  that  direction  being  previously 
his  south  would  mistake  it  for  south  after  he  had  iJaS^J 


id  then 

atrial  point, 

fiat  he  was 

BtoA, 

remen- 

"quired 

•veil  in 


488 


Haa  the  North  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


^1 


:-!^t 


"5    v:  * 


OOth  north  or  Pole  latitude  to  one  side  of  the  pole,  not  knowing 
hs  had  reached  the  90th  latitude  and  that  the  cardinal  points 
had  changed  for  his  position. 

The  most  necessary  observation  for  an  explorer  to  make 
<Hi  moving  out  on  the  polar  ocean  is  to  take  the  variation  of  the 
compass,  for,  when  the  skies  are  obscured,  the  sun  not  visible, 
and  during  snow-storms,  the  explorer's  only  guide  would  be 
the  compass,  and  if  he  did  not  know  its  variation,  he  would 
almost  certainly  be  lost  if  at  a  long  distance  from  land.  Mr. 
Peary  states  distinctly  that  during  the  four  days  preceding  and 
up  to  hie  obaervaiioH  at  noon  on  April  6,  a  latitude  sight  which 
he  says  placed  him  at  89'  i5',  a  distance  of  35  miles  from  the 
Pole— page  284 — the  fields  of  ice  were  glittering, 

"canopied  with  blue  and  lit  by  the  sun  and  moon. " 

Given  then,  that  at  noon  of  April  5  and  for  days  previous 
he  had  the  sun  to  guide  him  and  correct  his  compass  if  necessary, 
how  could  any  man  at  all  familiar  with  the  use  of  the  compass, 
in  a  distance  of  only  35  miles  diverge  from  a  straight  line  to  the 
extent  of  5  miles?  For  every  7  miles  north  he  would  have 
made  an  error  of  a  mile  to  the  west.  He  would  have  been 
traveling  Uie  hypothenuse  line  of  a  triangle  instead  of  the  base 
line  «hich  he  intended  to  follow.  An  explorer  who  could  not 
do  better  than  that  could  not  find  himself.  If  Mr.  Peary  could 
not  fcJlow  a  compass  line  any  bette-  than  that  he  would  neva 
know  his  position.  In  a  matter  of  490  miles  an  error  in  the 
same  ratio  would  have  canned  him  70  miles  to  the  west  of  his 
meridiim.  If  such  an  error  by  compass  were  repeated  every 
S5  miles,  an  explorer  would,  by  the  time  he  had  gone  less  than 
150  miles,  be  coming  back  instead  of  going  on. 

The  position  at  B  makes  too  wide  an  angle  with  a  base 
line  from  the  Pole,  and  with  the  Columbia  Meridian,  in  view 
of  the  visibility  of  the  sun  at  C,  and  the  indication  of  the  com- 
pass, to  be  considered  as  a  possible  error.  But  had  the  error 
been  made,  as  soon  as  the  sun  had  quartered  or  divided  the 
horizon  the  error  would  have  been  discovered.  Where  the  sun 
was  obscured  on  the  quarter,  and  visible  at  the  half  or  opposite 
point  of  the  sky,  the  position,  checked  by  the  chronometer, 
would  have  been  corrected  by  the  sun  being  opposite  the  point 
at  G  at  midnight  of  the  chronometer,  instead  of  3.  Had  Mr. 
Peary  made  such  an  error  in  the  position  at  B  and  moved  on  in 
the  same  direction,  his  observations  would  not,  as  he  states, 
i'.ave  been  made  at  Columbia  Meridian  midnight. 


Appendix  I 


489 


M 


This  is  not  a  question  of  diverging  from  a  straight  line  due 
to  movement  or  condition  of  the  ice  or  "  leads. "  It  is  a  question 
of  whether  an  explorer  cannot  know  his  lines  better,  whether 
he  cannot  read  the  time  of  his  chronometers  more  accurately, 
whether  he  cannot  more  accurately  compare  the  tune  of  his 
chronometers  witH  the  sun.  Mr.  Peary's  chronometers  would 
be  inaccurat'>  on^  one  or  two  minutes  during  the  entire  journey 
and  return,  therefore  only  about  one  minute  in  a  thirty  day 
journey  from  the  land,  yet  he  is  out  with  the  sun  many  hours 
in  every  direction.  It  must  be  remembered  that  6  hours'  error 
in  time  here  will  send  an  explorer  to  a  different  quarter  of  the 
globe,  and  a  few  minutes  entirely  off  his  route. 

In  conclusion,  and  bearing  on  the  subject  generally,  attention 
should  be  called  to  three  important  matters  relating  thereto: 

Firgt:  Nowhere  does  Mr.  Peary  make  the  slightest  ref- 
erence to  the  variation  of  the  compass.  As  before  stated,  the 
necessity  of  knowmg  this  is  of  the  greatest  and  the  variation  of 
the  needle,  on  the  way  to  and  at  the  Pole  is  one  of  the  most 
important  facts  that  an  explorer  coidd  bring  to  science.  The 
abseno*  of  this  is  deplorable,  for  an  engineer  to  ignore  is  in- 
excusable, and  its  absence,  to  say  the  least,  very  suspicious. 

Second:  The  tot  1  absence  of  any  longitucUnal  observations 
is  also  deplorable,  for  an  engineer  inexcusable,  and  again  veiy 
suspicious,  these  being  necessary  the  same  as  the  variaticHi  of 
the  compass,  for  an  explorer  to  know  his  position. 

Third:  The  ch^vcter  of  the  photographs  submitted  by 
Mr.  Peary  to  have  been  taken  at  the  Pole.  Such  could  have 
been  taken  anywhere  in  the  Arctic  in  a  gray  hght.  They 
could  have  been  taken  anywhere  in  the  Aretic  for  his  farthest 
position  north.  Acccmling  to  Mr.  Peary  he  took  an  observa- 
tion of  the  sun  at  no<m  of  April  6,  an  observation  of  the  sun  at 
midnight  April  6,  an  observatirai  of  the  sun  at  6  a.  m.  of  April  7, 
and  another  observation  of  the  sun  at  noon  of  April  7,  four 
periods  of  sunshine  within  the  thirty  hours  of  tne  churned  stay 
at  the  Pole,  yet  consider  the  shadowless,  characterless  photo- 
graphs stated  to  have  been  taken  withir.  that  period. 

No  man  could  have  Kved  through  such  amazing  conditions 
as  detailed  and  remained  ignorant  of  them,  and  yet,  Mr.  Peary, 
in  all  his  statements  shows  that  he  is  ignorant  of  the  veritable 
maze  of  abnormal  conditions  which  must  have  nisted  if  his 
general  statement  were  true.  The  pt^ar  sun  and  the  polar  ice 
must  have  been  dancing  a  weirder  and  wilder  dance  than  the 
fabled  dance  of  the  witches  on  the  Brocken  on  Walpurgia  night. 


4iii 


*f 


im., 


APPENDIX  II 
H.  W.  LEWIN  ON  DRIFT 


Nf-  , 


TAKEN   FROM 

DID  PEARY  REACH  THE  POLE? 

W.  Henry  Lewin,  IN  "DID  PEARY  REACH  THE 
POLE?"  (London,  England,  1910)  gives  a  graphic  description 
of  the  difficulty  in  plotting  accurately  the  full  deviation  caused 
by  DRIFT.  He  shows  that  if  the  true  drifting  route  could  be 
plotted,  that  very  few  if  any,  straight  lines  would  appear  in  the 
plot  and  those  that  did  appear  would  be  very  short. 

He  writes: 

"The  additions  made  to  tiie  point-to-point  mileage  are  not 
only  perfectly  fair  to  Peary,  but  are  on  the  contrary,  consider- 
ably r  "is  than  we  could  have  added  with  full  justification." 

"It  is  only  by  daily  observationn  for  latitude  and  longitude 
that  the  actual  route  traveled  by  any  party  over  the  ice  can  be 
correctly  ascertained,  and  this  is  apparently  impossible  to 
accomplish  when  the  many  other  duties  are  considered,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  fact  that  the  sun  is  not  available  for  daily  ob- 
servations. We  have  seen  that  the  straight  hues  on  Nansen's 
chaiis  between  various  points  cannot  represent  the  actual 
route.    Even  with  a  perfect  chart  resulting  from 


lOTM  DAY 


daily  observations,  we  should  at  once  be  faced  with  a  difficulty — 
the  difficulty  of  determining  exaetly  how  much  additional 
marching  the  drift,  as  shown  by  the  zigzag  nature  of  the  chart, 
had  really  caused. " 

490 


Appendix  II  ^g] 

"For  inatance.  the  smaU  diagram  A,  is  an  enlanreu  aection 
ri  Nansen's  chart  over  the  Polar  ice.  and  we  wSlsSi^SlS 
straight  Ime  ^Uon  m  the  centre  occupied  ten  dSS^The 

KlZi?''  '•"''  "?!k°'  J^*'  S^*  represents^  observZn  taken 
ti^  ^""^^^P^  «»e  ten  days,  and  the  opposite  point  onSe 
right  an  observation  taken  at  the  end  of  ten  dS^.  Noob^rv^ 
tions^^  been  taken  during  the  ten  days."  «o  ooserva- 

Supposmg,  however,  that  observation  had  been  taken 

"During  the  first  two  days  of  this  imaginary  ten  dava' 
charted  journey,  it  wUl  be  noted  that  the  .SlWagSist  4e 
trovelerj,  and  veiyhttle  advance  was  made.  OnthetoShday 
^  wmd  was  behind  the  travelers,  and  shows  a  greateXrT^S 
covered.    It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  actual  marc'iing 


■i!f| 


^ 


..^^ 


♦ 


accomphshed  would  be  greater  upon  either  of  the  first  two 
days,  than  upon  the  tenth  day.  The  imaginary  chart  bIs  m^ 
sjbly  exa^erated.  since  it  works  out  atJSJethSi  overdo 
per  cent  m  advance  of  the  straight  Ime  section.  Aether  that 
«  so  or  not.  each  one  of  tJiose  st^ight  Imes  on  the  N^SS?  chart 
would  show  aometldng  like  B.  supposmg  that  it  waa^niS 
upon  the  results  of  diSy  observationsT^  compiled 

"  But  it  does  not  necessarily  follow,  supposing  any  strmisht 

rch  1.000  rniks,    That  is  admitted,  for  we  have  STot 
-rt  B  iiat  the  wina  is  sometimes  aU  in  favor  of  the  inSh^ 

J^^^'^ZJ^'^Ji'u''   ^  .~"P^  however.X^^ 
agamrt  wmdwaid  dnft  being  m  favour  of  the  marcher  ar»8tol 


'tw 


ii- 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


If  the  full  number  of  points  of  the  compass  are  coimted  in,  the 
chances  against  the  wind  being  exactly  in  favour  of  the  marcher 
are  31    to   1." 


•  AM  TUCSDAY 


•AM  MONDAY 

"In  spite  of  the  apparent  exactitude  which  the  possessi<xi 
of  a  daily  chart  would  give,  there  is  another  difficidty  which 
must  prevent  any  explorer  from  tracing  his  exact  route  over  the 
ice." 

"The  short  line  given  on  Chart  C  represents  the  first  day's 
journey  from  the  chart  B  and  enlarged. " 

"It  will  be  noticed  that  twenty-four  hours  have  elapsed 
between  the  two  observations,  and  during  that  time  sevoul 
hours  were  occupied  in  sleeping.  There  can  be  no  evidence 
whether  the  explorers  were  blown  back  on  the  ice  during  the 
night,  snaking  the  real  twenty-four  hours'  chart  something 
like  the  one  shown  as  Chart  D. " 

"In  such  a  case,  the  sledge-party  would  have  to  march  an 
extra  distance  which  there  would  be  no  possibility  of  recording. 
There  is,  of  course,  the  possibility  of  ute  night  drift  being  in 
favour  of  the  travelers,  but  the  chances,  as  we  have  seen,  are 
largely  against  it.  It  is  therefore,  impossible  even  with  a  chart 
of  the  route  from  daily  observations,  to  determine  with  com- 
plete exactitude  the  extra  distance  actually  marched  owing  to 


^' 


^es^' 


ACTUAL  ROUTE 


CHARTED  ROUTe 


Appendix  II  493 

windward  drift.  Fair  deductions  have  to  be  made  to  enable 
one  to  Mtunate  reasonable  additions  to  point-to-point  mUeage.  " 
ronf.  ?»  f  °"^**.5«  "9ted  by  the  reader,  that  the  deviaUonTSom 
route  just  considered,  are  quite  distinct  from  those  aUowed  for 
in  adding  SO  per  cent  to  the  Commander's  figures,  and  are  not 
mcluded  m  tCe  80  per  cent  in  the  absence  SfSJTe^^* 

ikZ  iSr"n^  !!T*  ^  ^^^'^  *»'  ^^  suggestion,  that  the 
1.500  nules  aUowed  for  Commander  Peaiy's  journQr.  is  prob- 
ably a  long  way  short  of  the  distance  to  be  cJveid  on  a  joSJ^ 

^"ca^'coSSr "  *"  '"^  '*°'*'  "^^  ^'  *°  ""^  sLridaJ 


APPENDIX  III 


iF" 


Extracts  from  Speech  of  Hon.  R.  B.  Macon  Deuvbred 
IN  THE  House  of  Representatives  and  Reported  in 
Congressional  Record  of  February  16, 1911 

(The  speech  should  be  read  in  full  as  a  valuable  contribution 
to  the  record  of  the  case). 

"Mr.  Chairman:  He  said  in  part: 

"I  realize  that  my  eflForts  to  defeat  the  passage  of  the  biU 
to  promote  and  retire  Capt.  Peaiy  are  herculean  in  their  propor- 
tions when  I  consider  that  I  have  the  combmed  influwice  of  the 
administration,  a  paid  lobby  of  the  Peary  Arctic  Club,  and  the 
National  Geographic  Society  to  contend  with,  but  Imymg  nght 
upon  my  side  as  I  see  it,  I  am  going  to  do  everythmg  m  my 
power  to  defeat  it  and  allow  the  American  people  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  what  is  said  and  done  by  those  who  are  for  and  those 
who  are  against  this  species  of  legislation.  I  know  it  is  said  that 
the  President  has  a  judicial  mind,  and  hence  when  he  amv» 
at  a  conclusion  concerning  any  matter  that  it  is  well  founded, 
but  in  this  particular  instance  I  must  reroectfully  take  issue 
with  that  contention,  because  it  appears  from  tel^rams  Uiat 
passed  between  him  and  Dr.  Cook  on  the  4th  day  of  SeptembCT, 
1909,  that  he  did  not  require  much  proof  or  use  much  thought 
before  he  discovered  that  Cook  had  discovered  the  North  Pole. 
I  will  here  incorporate  a  verbatim  copy  of  the  tel^raphic 
correspondence  between  them  in  order  that  the  world  mav 
understand  that  the  President  had  discovered  that  Dr.  Cook 
had  discovered  the  pole  before  he  ever  heard  of  Peary  s  discovery 

of  it. 

(Laughter  and  applause.) 

Copenhi^en,    September    4. 

Presidoit: 
The  White  House,  Washington  D.  C.      .  ,  ,,     _     ^      ,  ^, 
I  have  the  honor  to  report  to  the  Chief  Mi^strate  of  the 
United  States  that  I  have  returned,  having  reached  the  North 

Pole.  ^  .     „ 

Frederick  A.  Cook. 

404 


Appendix  III 


4»S 


Beverly,  Mass.,  September  4. 
Frederick  A.  Cook, 
Copenhagen,  Denmark: 
Your  dispatch    received.     Your    report    that    you    have 
reached  the  North  Pole  calls  for  my  heartiest  congratulations 
and  stirs  the  pridr  -f  all  Americans  that  this  feat,  wYurh  '- v  so 
long  baffled  the  world  has  been  accomplished  by  the  '  ^ent 

energy  and  wonderful  endurance  of  a  fellow  coimtiya 

WiLUAM  H.  T     r. 

When  the  committee  concluded  the  bill  to  promote  Peary,  it 
requested  the  gentleman  to  appear  before  it  with  his  pro<^s; 
but  instead  of  appearing  in  person,  he  or  some  one  for  him, 
caused  two  members  of  the  National  Geographic  Society,  who 
as  a  part  of  a  subcommittee  of  three  had  previously  passed  upon 
what  they  called  his  proofs,  to  appear  for  him;  and  at  the  hear- 
ings they  stated,  among  other  things,  that  they  were  friends  of 
Peary  and  believed  that  he  had  discovered  the  pole  before  they 
saw  any  of  his  proofs.  They  stated  that  the  only  official  records 
that  \hey  had  of  his  having  been  to  the  pole  were  some  astrono- 
mical and  tidal  observations  and  a  line  of  soimdings  extending 
from^  Cape  Columbia,  where  the  tidal  observations  were  made, 
to  within  about  five  miles  of  the  pole;  they  said  that  all  of  the 
records  presented  by  Peary  in  support  of  his  allied  discoveiy 
of  the  pole  could  have  been  made  up  in  the  city  of  Washmgton, 
or  at  the  point  where  he  and  Capt.  Bartlett  separated  on  their 
journey  toward  the  pole;  they  said  that  Pea'y  took  only  one 
latitudinal  observation  between  the  point  where  he  IdFt  Capt. 
Bartlett  and  the  North  Pole,  a  distance  of  138  miles,  and  that 
he  did  not  make  any  longitudinal  observations  at  all;  they  said 
that  \h.cy  could  not  have  relied  upon  the  report  of  the  observa- 
tions taken  by  Peary  without  any  knowledge  of  the  man  or 
without  apy  narrative;  they  said  that  nothing  was  presented 
to  them  to  show  that  he  ever  told  any  member  of  his  party  that 
he  had  discovered  the  pole,  and  that  no  member  of  the  par^y 
had  been  interrogated  by  the  committee  concerning  the  dis- 
covery, not  even  Henson ;  they  stated  that  Peary's  observations 
were  taken  with  an  artificial  horiaon,  and  thqr  admitted  that  a 
slight  modification  had  been  made  in  it  because  it  was  not 
possible  to  get  the  sun  at  very  low  angles;  they  slated  that  the 
only  examination  made  of  the  instruments  Peary  used  in  taking 
his  observations  was  made  at  the  station  here  in  Washington; 
hat  the  findings  of  the  subcommittee  to  the  eflfect  that  Peaiy 


m 


Ji 


4M 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Diaeoeered 


had  discovered  the  pole,  when  submitted  to  the  board  of  mana- 
gers of  the  National  Geographic  Society,  were  accepted  without 
question,  and  had  also  been  accepted  by  the  Gec^^phic  Societies 
of  London,  Paris,  Berlin,  Rome,  Brussels,  Antwerp.  Geneva, 
Dresden,  and  St.  Petersburg,  without  question  or  investigation 
of  Peaiy's  records  by  said  societies,  but  admitted  that  they 
knew  of  no  instance  where  a  national  geographic  society  had 
not  accepted  the  findin^d  of  other  geographic  societies  without 
question,  except  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Cook. 

The  Naval  Affairs  Committee,  not  being  satisfied  with  the 
information  furnished  it  by  these  gentlemen.  Messrs.  Gannett 
and  Tittman,  insisted  upon  Mr.  Peary's  full  report  being  laid 
before  it,  whereupon  they  were  informed  that  that  codd  not 
be  done,  for  the  reason  that  Mr.  Peary  had  forbidden  it  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  magazine  contracts  that  would  yield  con- 
siderable revenue  that  would  have  to  be  sacrificed  if  hi-,  proofs 
were  made  public.    The  committee  then  decided  that  the 
matter  should  be  mdefinitely  postponed  until  such  time  as  Mr. 
Peary  could  furnish  proofs  of  his  discovery.    Since  that  action 
was  taken  by  the  committee  he  has  written  many  magazine 
articles,  as  well  as  a  book  telling  his  tale  of  the  discovery,  and, 
to  say  that  his  story  is  wonderful,  is  putting  it  mildly.    I 
remember  to  have  read  a  piece  of  fiction  a  few  years  ago,  the 
scene  of  which  was  laid  in  a  great  monarchy,  the  capital  city  of 
which  was  located  at  the  North  Pole,  and,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection,  the  extreme,  unnatural,  unreasonable,  and  un- 
believable scenes  and  acts  enumerated  and  described  therein 
concemmg  an  imaginary  sovereignty  and  a  mythic  people  did 
not  excel  the  exaggerations  contained  in  a  later  work  of  fiction 
known  and  descnbed  as  The  North  Pole,  by  Robert  E.  Peary. 
I  also  remember  to  have  read  a  novel  that  was  written  in  the 
first  person,  whose  hero  was  a  bombastic  upstart  and  braggart 
that  never  knew  d^eat  or  met  an  equal  in  any  field  of  achieve- 
ment, whether  dealing  with  the  hearts  of  women,  the  diplomacy 
of  Presidents   and  statesr  en   in  Washington,   the  strategy, 
courage,  and  alertness  of  Napoleon  and  his  old  guard  in  Paris, 
or  the  arts  and  wiles  of  crafty  Indians  in  old  St.  I.ouis,  and  yet 
the  self-exalted  and  .self-puffed  acts  of  the  self-o/.inionated  hero 
of  that  book  do  not  in  any  way  or  in  any  degree  v  -eel  the  self- 
told  M-d  of  the  wonderful  hero  that  penned  the  narrative  ol 
The  North  Pole.    I  challenge  anyone  to  read  the  book  and 
dispute  my  diagnosis  of  it.    And  yet  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  of  America  is  being  asked  to  jump  the  writer  o 


Appendix  III 


407 


that  book  over  the  heads  of  many  true,  able,  and  efficient  naval 
officers,  who  have  stood  by  their  posts  of  duty  like  the  reputed 
Trojans  of  a  disUnt  age,  and  promote  him  to  the  high  and 
OTVeted  position  of  rear  admiral,  with  a  large  salary  and  a 
hero  s  passport  to  every  phase  of  human  society. 

In  dealing  with  Mr.  Peary's  application  for  a  promotion 
for  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole,  we  ought  to  emplov  the 
same  busmess  rules  that  are  used  by  business  men  m  dealing 
with  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life,  and  I  submit  that  if  that  is 
done  the  gentleman  will  not  receive  his  promotion  until  he  has 
furmshed  better  proofs  of  his  discovery  than  he  has  up  to  this 
time.    The  burden  is  upon  him  to  prove  his  claim  by  a  prepon- 
derance of  the  testimony,  if  not  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 
We  wiU  suppose  a  case  of  the  establishments  of  a  land  boundary 
where  It  18  necessary  to  find  a  comer  post  and  then  exanune  his 
proofs  and  see  whether  or  not  he  has  made  out  his  case.    Let  us 
take  the  North  Pole  as  the  post  that  it  is  necessary  to  discover 
before  the  line  could  be  mtelUgently  ascertamed  and  then 
mvwtigate  Peary's  proofs  and  see  whether  or  not  a  favorable 
verdict  could  be  rendered  upon  them  by  a  fau-  and  impartial 
juiy.    The  Geographic  Society  has  found  a  favorable  verdict 
upon  them,  but  according  to  the  statements  of  the  committee 
who  mvestigated  the  case,  thi^y  were  not  impartial.    In  fact, 
they  had  their  minds  made  up  as  to  what  verdict  they  would 
render  brfore  they  took  their  seats  in  the  box.    Common 
gratitude  for  gifts  received  by  members  of    the  Geographic 
Society  of  which  Peary  is  a  member,  and  their  pride  in  having 
the  world  believe  that  a  member  of  their  exclusive  body  did 
hnd  the  Pole  might  reasonably  be  expected  to  influence  the  find- 
ings of  that  tribunal. 

XT  ¥**  ^  .therefore  take  a  glance  at  their  evidence  before  the 
IN  aval  Affairs  Committee  once  more  and  see  whether  or  not 
unbiased  mmds  ought  to  be  bound  by  the  findings  of  the  only 
geographic  society  that  has  really  passed  upon  Peary's  proofs. 
The  witnesses  state  that  they  were  friends  of  Peary  and 
believed  that  he  had  discovered  the  Pole  before  they  saw  any 
of  his  proofs.  That  alone  is  enough  to  condemn  their  findings 
as  being  of  the  most  biased  character.  Th«5y  stated  that  the 
only  official  records  they  had  of  his  having  been  to  the  Pole, 
when  they  were  considering  what  verdict  to  render  in  regard  to 
the  discovery,  were  some  astronomical  and  tidal  observations 
and  a  line  of  soundings  that  he  had  made  extendmg  from  Cape 
Columbia  to  withm  about  5  miles  of  the  pole;  that  the  reooids 


f 
i 


408 


Hat  the  North  Pole  BtenDiseovend 


m 


presented  by  Peary  of  his  soundings  and  tidal  observations,  as 
well  as  everything  else  submitted  by  him  in  support  of  his 
alleged  discovery,  could  have  been  made  up  in  the  city  of 
Vt'ashington,  or  at  the  point  where  he  and  Bartlett  separated  on 
their  journey  toward  the  Pole.  That  being  the  case,  have  we 
any  evidence  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  records  of  the  soundings 
and  observations  furnished  the  society  by  Peary,  except  his 
own  unsupported  statement  in  regard  to  the  matter;  and  hence, 
if  we  accept  that  these  soundings  and  observations  were  made, 
we  must  take  the  unsupported  statement  of  Peary  as  a  basis 
for  our  action. 

These  gentlemen  told  the  committee  that  Peary  took  onlv 
one  latitudinal  observation  between  the  point  where  he. left 
Capt.  Bartlett  and  the  North  Pole,  a  distance  of  133  miles,  and 
that  he  did  not  make  any  longitudinal  observations  at  all. 
Scientist;  tell  ii."!  that  unlets  longitudinal  observations  are  taken 
at  intervals,  when  crossing  the  barren  ice  fields  of  the  North,  it 
is  impossible  to  tell  whether  you  are  going  directly  north  or 
south.  Therefore  it  is  silly  to  ask  an  intelligent  body  of  men 
to  accept  the  findings  of  this  distinguished  geographic  society, 
in  regard  to  so  important  and  doubtful  a  discovery,  when  the 
discoverer  did  not  know  in  what  direction  he  was  traveling. 
In  fact,  did  not  know  whether  he  was  going  in  or  coming  out 
"Laughter".  It  is  also  absurd  to  ask  anyone  to  believe  thatan 
explorer  could  travel  over  an  unknown  and  badly  broken  ice 
field  for  a  distance  of  138  miles  and  ''p«p"  right  down  on  the 
Pole  without  having  taken  but  one  latitudina\  observation  in  the 
entire  distance  traveled.  They  stated  that  they  could  not  have 
relied  upon  the  report  of  the  observations  taken  by  Peary  with- 
out tjw  knowledge  of  the  man  or  without  a  narrative. 

TBat  being  the  case  anyone  can  see  that  the  society,  in 
order  to  make  the  finding  it  did,  considered  the  observations 
worthless  of  themselves  and  took  the  unsupported  word  of 
Peary  with  his  narrative  as  a  basis  for  their  findings.  They 
could  not  have  given  much  faith  and  credit  to  the  soundings 
that  Peary  reported  to  have  made  within  5  miles  of  the^NorUi 
Pole,  for  he  himself  says  that  while  he  was  making  it  his  wire 
broke  and  he  lost  both  wire  and  weight.  How  in  the  name  of 
reason  could  an  imperfect  sounding  of  that  kind  be  valuable 
to  anyone  in  arriving  at  an  honest  verdict  concerning  the  dis- 
covery of  the  North  Pole?  Th^r  stated  that  the  examination  of 
the  instruments  Peary  used  on  his  trip  was  made  at  the  railroad 
station  in  Washington.    Such  an  examination  must  have  been 


Afptndix  III 


499 


only  camial.  if  not  highly  careless,  and  goes  to  show  that  in 
everything  that  was  done  by  the  society  in  connection  witS 
its  ascertainment  of  the  truth  of  the  discovery  of  the  Pole  i  - 
Peary.  wa&  of  the  most  casual,  careless,  and  unreliable  character. 
Thev  stated  that  Peary's  observations  were  taken  with  an  arti- 
ficial horizon  and  they  admitted  that  a  slight  modification 
presumably  by  them,  though  they  did  not  state  that  fact,  had 
been  made  on  the  horizon  because  it  was  not  possible  to  get  the 
sun  at  very  low  angles. 

Think  of  it,  gentlemen,  the  very  idea  of  asking  Congress 
to  accept  as  true  observations  that  were  taken  with  an  artificial 
horizon  near  th*"  North  Pole  that  had  to  be  modified  by  a  society 
in  the  city  of  Washington  when  they  were  passing  upon  the 
facts  presented  to  them  by  the  great  dise;verer.  They  stated 
that  nothing  was  presented  to  them  to  :^how  that  Peary  ever 
told  any  member  of  his  party  that  he  had  discovered  the  pole, 
and  that  no  other  member  of  the  party  had  been  interrogated  by 
the  committee  concerning  the  discovery.  When  we  consider 
that  the  nations  of  the  world  have  been  vieing  with  each  other 
for  centuries  upon  the  subject  of  discovering  the  North  Pole, 
it  is  unbelievable  that  one  who  had  sought  it  for  23  years  could 
discover  it  and  keep  the  knowledge  of  so  important  a  fact 
within  his  own  breast  for  the  period  of  time  that  it  is  claimed 
that  Peary  did  before  he  made  it  known  to  even  his  traveling 
companions,  companions  who  had  helped  him  to  make  his 
trip,  and  without  whom  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  have 
made  it.  It  is  an  insult  to  ask  intelligent  men  to  believe  such 
rot.  Gentlemen,  if  you  were  in  the  box  upon  your  oaths  to  tiy 
the  case  of  locating  the  boundaiy  line  that  I  have  cited,  could 
you  say,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  who  have  testified 
up  to  this  time,  and  the  exhibits  presented  by  them  in  support 
of  their  testimony,  that  the  comer  post  had  been  located? 

When  the  subcommittee  was  called  together  a  few  days 
ago  for  tile  purpose  of  further  considering  the  bill  to  promote  and 
retire  this  near  hero  (.mughter),  a  motion  was  made  to  rqwrt  the 
bill  favorably,  and  I  again  demanded  proofs  of  his  discovery, 
whoeupon  Mr.  Peary  was  invited  to  appear  before  the  com- 
mittee and  furnish  theni.  Some  of  the  committ*  j  were  in 
earnest  m  their  desire  fw  the  real  facts  in  the  case,  and  indsted 
upon  asking  quations  that  they  d?enj«^  pertinent,  but  the 
best  information,  or  so-called  proofs,  that  they  could  get  from 
the  alleged  discoverer,  when  summed  up,  were  a  lot  of  guesses, 
speculations,  assumpticms,  estimates,  and  evasimis,  ami  from 


::l 


fi 


500 


Has  tk$  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


■W'it' 


these  four  of  the  Rubcommittee  of  seven  solemnly  reported  that 
the  imyota  were  sufficient  to  establish  the  self-serving  declaration 
of  the  gentleman  to  the  effect  that  he  had  discovered  the  pole. 

Mr  P(</iry  adni'?^  •  chat  he  did  not  take  a  single  longi- 
tudinal  observation  upon  his  entire  trip  and  that  he  took  no 
latitudinal  obsen-ations  from  the  point  where  Capt.  Bartlett 
turned  back  to  Camp  Jessup,  which  ne  estimated  to  be  a  distance 
of  about  ISO  miles  ard  estimated  to  be  within  S  miles  of  the 
pole.  He  admitted  that  he  did  not  take  a  correct  sounding 
between  85"  28'  and  the  North  Pole,  and  that  the  needle  of  his 
compass  was  pointing  townrd  the  magneti<.'  pole,  which  he 
stated  was  about  1200  miles  distance  from  the  North  P<^. 
He  stated  that  he  traveled  ov<*r  an  unknown,  broken  ice  field, 
covered  with  high-pressure  ridges  and  dangerous  ice  le«da,  a 
distance  of  ISO  nautical  miles  in  five  days,  which  would  be  equal 
to  about  85  statute  miles  per  day — something  that  was  never 
done  by  an  Arctic  explorer  before  in  the  history  of  the  world — 
and  built  his  own  igloos  while  he  was  doing  it,  and,  seemingly, 
expected  men  possessed  of  some  degree  of  sense  to  believe  tnat 
he  made  the  tnp  under  such  difficulties  and  at  such  a  rapid  rate 
of  speed,  without  making  an  observation  of  any  kind,  and  his 
needle  pointing  in  an  entirely  different  direction,  and  yet  made 
a  bee  hne  to  the  pole.  Some  of  us  who  have  tried  to  plow  a 
straight  furrow  or  lay  a  fence  worm  across  a  lO-acre  field  without 
stakes  to^  ^ide  us,  or  who  have  undertaken  to  ride  acr»s8  a 
broad  praine  without  a  path  or  other  object  to  direct  our  eours-*, 
know  now  impossible  his  contention  is  when  he  insists  that  he 
could  rush  pell-mell  over  a  rough,  rugged,  and  broken  we 
course  for  a  distance  of  ISO  miles  without  an  observation  or 
object  to  guide  him  and  gc  directly  north  to  an  imagmary  point. 
He  admitted  that  he  had  no  charts,  data  or  other  scientific 
matter  that  would  aid  an  explorer  in  any  degree  in  his  efforts 
to  discover  the  pole;  that  that  long  sought-for  object  was  as 
completely  lost  now  as  it  wa.s  before  he  discovered  it. 

When  we  consider  that  latitudes  run  north  and  south  and 
longitudes  east  and  west,  and  that  latitudes  are  measur^  by 
longitudes,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  Peaiy,  under  the 
circumstances  and  conditions  stated,  could  have  any  more 
known  the  correct  latitude  that  he  was  hi  thui  a  traveler  would 
have  known  the  number  of  furlongs  that  he  had  traveled  in  a 
day  without  counting  the  number  of  mileposts  that  he  had 
passed  on  his  way. 

And  yet  we  are  asked  to  accept  the  bold  statemoits  of  the 


Appendix  III 


601 


Kentleman  as  God-given  facta  concern  ing  everything    fiat  he 
riaimed  to  have  done  on  his  journey,  when  ihey  are  con  t    ulicted 
j)y  a  combination  of  eveiy  reasonable  physical  and   -(a«?ntific 
impoMibility.     There  is  a  limit  to  human  prowess  and  en  lurance 
as  well  as  to  the  knowledge  of  man,  and  when  we  are  a  ^ked  to 
accept  such  exaggerated  statements  and  conclusions  as  this 
gentleman  presents  as  a  reason  why  he  should  be  honored  be- 
^u     iJL    '«*«»n»**'^  expectation.  I  think  that  his  insistence 
should  be  accepted  as  an  insult  to  the  intelligence  of  the  Ameri- 
can people  rath,  f  than  an  appeal  to  their  sentimental  generosity 
and  their  overweaning  desire  for  hero  worship.    I  yield  to  no 
man  in  my  desire  to  do  justice  to  every  real  hero  who  has  done 
something  for  his  country's  good,  but  my  contempt  for  fake 
heroes  is  sunreme,  no  mat»'ir  in  what  sphere  they  presume  to 
operate.     The  world  has  had  real  heroes  in  every  field  of  human 
activity  that  it  has  delighted  to  honor  and  their  fame  will  live 
wt*h  tune,  but  it  has  also  been  cursed  with  fake  heroes  who  have 
flc unshed  for  a  season  and  then  like  grass,  would  wither  away. 
San  Juan  Hill  had  one  of  those  for  a  time  (laughter),  but  upon 
investigation  it  was  shown  that  he  would  have  been  a  Spanish 
pnsOTier  instead  of  an  American  hero  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
intervention  of  Negro  troops.      (Laughter.)    Less  than  a  year 
a«o  a  conquerir    hero  of  biH«  and  'leasts  marched  forth  from 
the  jungles  of  Africa  flav^jhter)  and  crosswl  the  European  Con- 
tinent ynth  majestic  fr;         nd  finally  landed  upon  our  own 
shore,  where  he  was  met         :  „.<vnds  of  hero  worshippers  who 
received  ,  m  as  an  unc.   v  > -      .  peror,  but  it  was  not  nmay 
moons  before  many  of  tl.i  ■<-:   ',V.  ,)aid  him  homage  upon  ^hat 
occasion  bowed  their  hea^J^  " .  .  .agrin  and  tried  to  ioi^ret  it. 
Thus  It  will  be  seen,  Mr.  Spr«ker,  that  it  will  md  ,{o  <  •    ut 
homa  heroes  upon  pinnacles  of  fame,  for  it  will  n  ■  f-    long 
before  they  must  come  down. 

A  real  hero  wodd  not  accept  honors  at  th/»  hands  of  his 
people  where  there  was  a  shado  ►  ol  .i  clouH  upon  h'l  title 
thereto;  and  we  nctii  no  safer  rt.  „  tc  .i:*.  bse  a  fake  hero  than 
that  of  his  bemg  willing  to  a( xvpi  a  reward  at  the  hands  of  a 
confiding  and  generous  people  when  there  is  a  shadow  enveloping 
his  title  in  any  degree.  Let  us  now  see  if  the  gentleman  who  is 
asking  honors  at  the  hands  of  the  Amer  an  people  has  a  shadow 
r-  stmg  around  and  about  his  claim  to  ibnu.aijd  if  there  is  any 
reason  for  that  cloud  to  exist,  when  consir^.  ced  m  the  light  of 
his  own  contmtiuns. " 


502 


Has  the  North  Poie  Been  Diacooend 


He  and  his  friends  were  loud  in  discrediting  Dr.  Cook's 
story  of  the  discoveiy  of  the  pole  and  denounced  fim  asa  faker 
and  his  story  as  a  "gold  brick, "  and  yet  there  are  many  Hymning 
coincidences  in  the  stories  told  by  each  of  them  in  regard  to  their 
alleged  discoveries.  Both  of  them  had  attempted  to  reach  the 
North  Pole  before,  and  each  of  them  on  their  hut  attempt 
positively  asserted  that  they  would  discover  it  that  time. 
There  was  nothing  in  their  previous  attemiits  to  discover  it 
that  entitled  them  to  express  such  confidence  in  the  restdt  of 
their  last  exploration.  When  each  of  them  were  well  up  towaid 
the  pole  they  got  rid  of  their  white  companions  and  when  they 
had  gotten  rid  of  their  white  witnesses  they  gi«atly  increased 
thebr  prepress.  They  both  say  that  the  pole  is  a  sea  of  ice,  and 
they  both  made  the  same  statement^  m  r^aid  to  the  pole, 
even  to  the  peculiar  color  conditions  siuroundmg  it,  and  ^tirther, 
they  confirmed  each  other  in  every  particular  as  to  the  .<mooth- 
ness  of  the  ice  and  the  ability  to  travel  rapidly  after  their  white 
witnesses  were  gone.  When  all  of  these  coincidences  are  con- 
sidered together  they  must  be  accepted  as  impossibilities, 
unless  it  is  conceded  thai  they  both  re«  bed  the  goal.  It  is 
more  reasonable  to  believe,  however,  tk .  when  they  were  on 
their  polar  expedition  together  that  ailed,  that  it  is  possible, 
and  even  probable  that  after  their  failure  tney  discussed  the 
practicability  of  an  explorer  freeing  himself  of  white  witnesses 
who  could  and  would  dispute  him  and  ^'aim  the  discovery  of 
the  pole  without  a  reasonable  possibiUtv  ,1  the  fake  ever  being 
found  out  than  it  is  to  believe  that  they  each  discovered  it. 
Gentlemen,  do  you  believe  that  either  of  them  discovered  it? 

Cook,  after  exposure  and  reflection,  has  admitted  that  he 
may  have  lied  about  it,  and  it  is  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  a 
large  body  of  American  citizens  that  the  most  manly  thing  left 
for  Peaiy  to  do  is  to  follow  theexamplesetby  Cook,  justashe 
coincidently  paralleled  the  story  told  by  Cook.  But  since  he  has 
failed,  up  to  this  time,  to  follow  Cook's  example,  let  us  cat  ^lally 
review  his  journey,  as  told  by  himself,  and  see  what  we  can  get 
out  of  it  that  will  help  us  in  our  efforts  to  render  a  righteous 
verdict  in  his  case.  After  reaching  the  land  of  the  Esl^os  he 
gathered  up  a  number  of  natives  and  dogs  to  assist  him  in  his 
discovery  and  proceeded  to  Cape  Sheridan,  where  he  abandoned 
the  ship  after  a  winter's  rest,  and  commenced  his  overland 
journey  to  the  pole,  accompunied  by  6  intelligent  white  men, 
who  could  take  observations  and  make  soundings,  and  19 
ignorant  Eskimos,  that  he  said  wouki  walk  through  hell  if  he 


Appendix  III 


508 


told  them  to  do  so.  and  a  negro  tool  tijat  he  characterued  ai 
bemg  as  submu».ve  to  his  wiU  as  the  fingers  of  his  oWrigh? 


Peary 


R.^rfLir-'i,''^'*'  i"  his  book  that  on  April  1,  1909,  Capt. 
Bartlett.  having  traveled  northward  with  him  from  CaM 
Columbu.  toward  the  oole.  reached  Utitude  87-  4,7\ZdtiS. 
CohTXr  S^PV.  "^rtfett  tomed  back  and  returned  to  C^ 
£lr«;  \*^^  T^^^^^:^^  proceeds  tc' say  tbBtal^ 
M^nlnZ*^  ^'a\  ^"^  ^^^'  accompanied  by'^theNe^ 
Mat  Henson.    and  four  Eskimos,  traveled  that  distant  ii^ 

nSuit  r  ,  '""*  ***.  '^?P*^  *"^  ™^e  a  «w»P.  which  he 
"^oST'^tiTT"  *"**  ^^""^  **^"«  "»y  observations  he 
tI^^?  I.  ^^  *"  ''"  '"  '^^  neighborhood  of  the  pole. 
Thereupon  he  says,  on  page  207  of  his  book,  that— 

m«^.  Vk  *PP~"I"»*«  ^«'  noon  of  the  ColumbU  meridian  I 
o^S'^oSiion'::  stl^r "  **  '^^^  ^"^^  -"^P-  ''  '"^^^^ 
This  quoted  stot^ment  is  open  to  critidim.  because  no 
obsei  vation  taken  a  few  miles  from  the  pole  on  ApSe  1 9W 
couW  furnish  any  i^le  foundation  T  a^^uSiLit  of 
latitude  unless  that  observation  was  taken  attheS^oon 
or  some  other  definite  pomt  of  local  time.  Sr.  Pei^  SSS 
S^™."r!  *^*  **•  '^'^  °"  .**»*  Columbia  m«ffi«,,^ 
^S!n.^'    "approximate    local  noon  of    the    Colimbia 

^T&urnJ*"""''^'**'P'^*^«^P^''P«"«'«»»-'^*i^ 

A««  «?  **®*S  **' *^  assumptions  were  quite  unjustifiable. 
A^  ob^srvation  taken  in  the  pohir  region?  at  "ai/piSS 
local  noon'   may  vaiy  so  much  f row  fccal  noon  ai  to  ^to 

^l  San"?.*  rTK*'  "'^P*^""  ^*  ^^  wron"the  cS! 
bia  meridian  is  a  stJl  more  serious  error,  unless  he  had  some 
mean,  of  knowm^  that  he  was  on  the  CoCbk  mwidST 
A^  It  anpears  mlis  book  that  he  had  no  means  of  £oS^S 

SmTu  li£?  "^^T^  "^'  i"*  '^^  probably,  not  <£X 
(>>himbia  meridian  at  Camp  Jessup.  &is  aGwrnption  that 
that  ounp  was  on  the  same  meridian  m  Cape  S^&X 
t^t  It  was  exactly  r.orth  of  Cape  Cohmibu'!^  But  this  i^C 
^Ji^#°J-  '°"^^*»«\  ^i^tever  in  Peaiy's  book.  ^ 
SS^n  ^i^J^^  ^^  f^P*  Columbia  and  Camp 
nSS'^lorS  LT?^  '^  ^*^*"  *^«*  ^^'  •bout  ISO 
Ki  *i.-«  ""  ^f*"?  ^^^•'P'  ^'^  ^"^^  in  bit>ad  daylight, 

for  the  sun  never  sets  hi  that  portion  of  the  Polar  SeaitSj 


1 


504 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


time  during  the  months  of  April.  May,  Jwie,  July,  or  August, 
end  the  moon  was  below  the  horizon  of  that  portion  of  the 
poiar  sea  during  the  first  week  of  April,  in  1909.  There  was, 
therefore,  only  two  conceivable  guides  which  Peaiy  could  uae 
to  guide  him  from  the  point  where  Bartlett  turned  back  directly 
to  the  North  Pole.  One  of  those  guides  would  consist  in 
making  frequent  observations  upon  the  sun  and  the  other 
would  consist  in  follov  ing  the  guidance  of  the  mariner's  compass. 
But  the  mariner's  co.npas8  in  that  portion  of  the  polar  sea 
would  never  point  north.  It  would  point  somewhere  between 
south  and  southwest,  because  it  would  point  toward  the  magnet- 
ic pole,  which  is  in  that  direction  from  that  region.  But  this 
pomting  of  the  mariner's  compass  to  the  magnetic  pole  would 
continually  vary  between  south  and  souUiwest  as  Peaiy 
traveled  northward  from  the  point  where  Bartlett  turned  back; 
and  he  could  not  know  the  degree  of  that  variation  at  any 
particular  time  without  knowing  how  far  north  he  had  travded 
since  he  last  consulted  the  compass,  and  without  also  knowing 
whether  during  that  part  of  his  journey  he  had  unintentionally 
varied  east  or  west  from  the  due  north  course.  For  this  reason 
the  mariner's  compass  would  not  constitute  a  reliable  guide  as 
to  what  course  to  take  in  traveling  northward  from  the  point 
where  Bartlett  turned  back  toward  the  pole. 

The  only  other  conceivable  guide  to  follow  in  tiying  to 
travel  directly  north  would  be  observations  of  altitude  of  the 
sun  above  the  horizon,  or  below  the  zenith  of  the  sl^,  from  time 
to  time  during  the  five  days  that  he  was  traveling  northward. 
But  an^  observed  altitude  of  the  sun  would  net  guide  Peary  to 
the  latitude  of  his  point  of  observation  without  first  guidinff 
him  to  the  longitude  of  that  point,  because  the  time  in  the  locu 
day  would  depend  upon  the  local  longitude,  and  because  Uie 
true  latitude  occupied  by  the  observer  could  be  learned  only  by 
deduction  from  f^e  true  time  of  the  local  day.  In  the  region 
Peary  was  traversing  the  sun  is  hig'ter  at  noon  than  it  is  at  10 
o'clock  of  the  local  day,  as  it  is  in  other  regions  of  the  earth,  and 
therefore  no  calculation  can  be  based  upon  its  altitude  at  any 
particular  moment,  unless  the  observer  knows  at  what  particular 
local  time  he  is  making  the  observation. 

New,  it  appears  in  Peary's  book  that  on  his  way  north, 
from  the  point  where  Bartlett  turned  back  to  Camp  Jessup,  he 
took  no  <i>bservations  whatever  with  a  view  of  asccalaining  the 
longitude  and  thereby  to  ascertain  the  local  time.  On  the 
contrary,  it  appeai^  that  he  simply  assumed  that,  whenever  he 


Appendix  III 


MM 


tc«k  an  observation,  he  was  exactiy  north  of  Cape  Columbia, 
and  that  when  his  chronometer,  which  was  set  to  the  time  of  the 
Cc'umbia  mendian.  mdicated  noon  it  was  ako  noon  where  he 
was.  On  that  gratuitous  and  unfounded  assumption  he  appears 
to  have  taken  observations  of  the  sun  at  12  o'clock.  a«Kg 
to  his  Columbian  chronometer,  and  then  gratuitously  assumiiij 
that  the  sun  was  at  its  highest  point  above  the  horiion  he  cdf 
culatedjhat  his  altitude  was  at  the  time  of  taking  that  observa- 
tionwithout  bothering  his  mind  about  longitudinal  observations 

P-o  J*i^*f'  '•lf'*'°r?'  '~"  the  foregoing  explanations,  that 
Peaiy  did  not  and  could  not  travel  directly  northward  from  the 
point  where  Bartlett  turned  back,  for  he  utili«Hl  no  mean! 
whatever  of  knowing  which  way  to  walk  over  the  ice  to  n^ih 
the  pole  from  that  pomt.    He  was  therefore  as  Ukehr  to  tntvel 
aJong  a  hne  which,  if  extended,  would  take  him  to  the  Eastern 
Hemisphere  10  80.  or  80  miles  to  the  right  of  the  polH/S 
travel  a  ong  a  line  which,  if  extended.  wouM  take  Km  10  80 
or  80  miles  to  the  left  of  the  pole.  a.  he  wa.  to  travd  doiig  . 
Ime  taking  him  direct  to  the  pole.    And  if  he  ^iioukl  hapnca 
M  travel  along  the  wrong  line  and  travel  10.  80  or  SO  mifcTiad 
th«i  happen  to  "reckon"  that  he  was  out  of  the  propwtwS 
wid  devmte  th<»efrom  to  correct  his  error,  he  mightiEvkteb 
the  rfght  frecboo  <^  he  might  deviate  in  tlie  wSag  direction. 
On  the  whole,  if  it  is  assumed  that  he  did  ivach.  in  five 
days,  a  pomt  about  180  nautical  miles  north  of  where  fiarClett 
nTJl  T^K  '\  » '*»<>'"*f»y  ««rtain  that  he  did  not  andcoSd 
?^L^ll^^  ^i^"^  •"  •  straight  line,  and  the  devUUons 
from  directness  which  must  have  characteriwd  that  joumev 
must  have  mcreased  its  distance  of  180  mUes  on  an  air  fine  to  a 
much  jj«ater  distance,  and  that  much  greater  distance  may  have 
reached  IfiO  or  175  miles,  or  perhaps  800  miles.    Thus  the  diffi- 

fivAri^tJ^  *'rT  *?/'****  in  beUeving  that  he  travelw^ 
five  days  180  nautical  miles  northward  from  the  noint  whon. 
Bartletttumed  back  is  much  increased  by  this  e^WU^.  J^ 
that  whoever  believes  that  Peaiy  reached  8»-  ST  ktlO^l^ 

;™?LfT?**°^a^'  ^P"^  ^J  ^^'  "»"»'  *^  »>««eve  that  he 

traveled  at  lewt  80  miles  a  day.  and  perhaps  40  miles  a  day.  on 
the  average,  during  that  time.  ^' 

Now.  in  view  of  the  fact  that  no  other  aretic  expkrer  in 
histoiy  ever  traveled  even  100  miles  over  the  pohu-  iiSTfiw 

disabled  by  the  absence  of  all  ol  his  toes,  except  one  UttfetS 


506 


Hot  the  North  Pols  Been  Diteooered 


1 » 


from  making  great  speed  across  the  ice  of  the  Polar  Ocean,  it  is 
very  diflScnlt  to  believe  that  he  did  during  those  five  days 
travel  over  that  ice  nearly  twice  as  fast  as  anvbody  else  ever 
did.  The  only  view  upon  which  such  a  belief  could  possibly 
be  foimded  would  be  upon  the  theory  that  Pearv  did  not  p«>r- 
sonally  walk  much  of  the  time,  if  at  all,  during  these  five  dav\:, 
but  was  simply  hauled  upon  one  of  the  sled^s  driven  by  Mat 
Henson  and  the  Esquimos.  But  that  view  is  met  by  the  fact 
that  he  states  in  his  book  that  he  walked  much  of  the  time,  and, 
indeed,  that  he  lead  the  march  after  B<utlett  turned  back. 

It  appears  in  chapter  82  of  Peary's  book  that  after  taking 
his  observations  "at  approximate  local  noon"  of  the  Coiumbia 
meridian  time  at  Camp  Jessup,  of  April  6.  1909,  he  turned  in 
for  a  few  hours  of  absolutely  necessary  sleep,  but  that  he  was 
awake  again  at  6  p.  m.  of  Columbia  meridian  time,  when, 
however,  he  was  prevented  by  clouds  from  taking  any  observa* 
tions.  Thereupon  he  took  two  E^uimos  and,  without  Henson, 
"pushed  on"  an  estimated  distance  of  10  miles.  At  the  end  of 
that  trip  he  says  that  he  took  a  series  of  observations  at  mid- 
night of  Columbia  meridian  time,  and  that  those  observaticms 
indicated  that  he  was  then  beyond  the  pole. 

This  statement  implies  very  plainly  that  Peary  passed  from 
the  Western  to  the  Eastern  Hemisphere  during  tnat  10-miIe 
trip,  and  was,  theref<n«,  on  the  opposite  side  ol  the  pole  from 
Cunp  Jessup.  But  it  is  an  open  secret  that  the  scientific 
gentlemen  wno  have  made  friendly  computations  in  behalf  <rf 
the  National  Geographic  Society  from  Peaiy's  recorded  ob- 
servations have  found  that  the  observations  which  he  says  he 
took  at  the  end  of  the  10-mile  journey  indicated  that  the  point 
was  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  and  was  farther  away  from 
the  pole  than  Camp  Jessup,  oeing  southwest  thorefrom.  T^re- 
fore  it  plainly  appears  that  Peaiy  did  not  know  at  Camp  Jessup 
what  was  the  true  direction  of  the  track  which  he  had  traveled 
shortly  before  reaching  that  point.  He  evidently  supposed  that 
that  backward  trail  extended  from  Camp  Jessup  directly  to  the 
south,  and  that  if  he  took  his  10-mile  trip  in  the  opposite 
direction  he  would  cross  from  the  Western  to  the  Evtem 
Hemisphere  at  or  near  the  pole.  But  it  now  appears  that  the 
attempt^he  made  to  extend  his  10-mile  track  in  the  same 
direction  resulted  in  his  traveling  toward  the  southwest  instead 
o^toward  the  pole.  And  if  we  assumed,  as  we  apparently 
should,  that  the  10-mile  trip  from  Camp  Jessup  was  ti^enona 
line  with  the  trail  by  which  Camp  Jessup  was  reachad  we  will 


Appendix  III 


507 


JTrffpn-fTiT'  "*,'**  "°' "'"•''«"**»«  "o^th.  but  from  the 
rn^i  hJ  P  ^^  ""^'IT*^}^  "**»""'«  *'^«  ^ario"*  statement. 
2^me"^th^?3t""  n**!?.lT^*  '™"!.*!'^  ««""«  »>>^  hi.  frienoa  is  to 
^rtJnn  !J  ♦l*'**'.  ^"*''^*  *".'??^  ^'^  he  wandered  over  that 
S  w?/i.  ♦K  ^'V  °**^  ''hich  has  a  diameter  of  about  m 
Th\  „^  *t*  P?'*"  "^^  *he  center,  without  knowing  where  he 
m^^  Prr'*'"'^  *'•"*'  '^^  *hat  at  the  end  of  this  wanderiw 
But  nE^  .*°  T'^"  "u"**"?  ''•*f^  *hout  8  mUes  of  the  po^ 
excLrS  trK"-""  f?r  'r  *h«t  camp  was  from  the  Jole. 
hU^i]^^!,*'***!?""'  °'  *he  figures  which  he  had  put  doiS^in 

whirh  t"^*  •/  *^f  "PP*^"^  ^'*^»*'°°  °'  the  sun  at  a  d^e 
which  he  gratmtously  assumed  to  be  "local  noon."  but  wS 

^uSknow  'tei''  f'l*?  local  noon,  so  far  as  Peaiy  knew  or 
h^  tooWh?,  «K-7^'!*°**'  unoertamty  of  the  local  time  when 
^took  his  observations  at    Camp   Jessup    quite  vitiates  anv 

^nA  ♦  f-,'^^  who  deducted  the  latitude  from  those  figures 
t^n  W  if  ,^°'*  *>  Naval  Affairs  Committee  to  its  cdK 
tion  and  result  may  have  made  his  calculations  correctlv  but  he 

l^fpJ^^iT^"'  *^!  ^i  °'  his  calcula^oS^'^i^.iiS! 
aTiSSrhl  "??  ^^l^  *°  *hem  any  evidence  of  the  local  tSe 
at  which  he  made  his  observations.  Of  course,  it  is  difficult  for 
any  observer,  no  matter  how  skillful  he  may  b^  or  whS  inrtm- 
Tm^SL'^'^  ^r  to,«certain  local  timTat  ^^SLt^r 
l^^Tr  ?°"  *v  P**'*-    ^"*  the  difficulty  of  proving^J 

S^f^f  f f-TP**"**""*^  "?*  ^.  ''»'^°''«*  «  «  substitute  for 
proof  of  that  proposition  when  it  is  necessaiy  to  know  the 

oldS  to  iSiritt.  ^>  "f^?y  *°  *-«^  b;=i]  t^ime*  in 
ST d^^rrJ;  I  " ♦K  **'  '""K^t"/!*  «>  or  100  mUes  from  the 
a  wTn  «^P'^  *°  the  recognition  of  presence  at  the  pole 
Itself.    If  an  ob.server  were  to  reach  that  point  upon  the  earth's 

drbe  tSt?  *.  ™'^°ii''^  ^t^^  'heTact  Xuch  p^cJ 
hSal  tL^nH    S;  P"''^'^  '^Jt**"*  P^y^*^  *"y  •tt^^tion  to 

Stud"   A  IfhlT'  '''S**"*  ^'y*".*  »°y  »««°«o°  to 

IHk  5  *  method  would  consist  simply  in  measurine 
the  shadow  of  a  man  every  «.  4.  or  6  hours  during  anyW  h"u« 

b  ^Tm'^'^l^r'  ^^  "^^r^.to  any  chronometef  sS  to  CoW 
oSSui  *f  Tk  T  *!I¥J"  *•?*;  "  this  method  were  to  he 
pursued  at  the  pole,  aU  the  shadows  throughout  the  24  hou« 

Su^^'ZJh^'^'^.^'kT'^  '^'  though  mattierat&y 
fmm  SSr*  ?^**  vaiy  shghtly  and  gradually  diminish  in  AprU 
from  time  to  time  during  the  24  hours. 


i 


MB 


Bai  the  North  PoU  Been  Ditoocered 


■mm 


■M 


If  Peaiy  had  been  at  the  pole  on  April  6  and  7,  in  1W9.  all 
he  had  to  do  to  enable  himself  to  afterwards  prove  that  fact  to 
the  world  would  have  been  to  have  had  Henson  stand  at  a 
particular  place  on  the  ice  at  6  p.  m.  of  April  6,  according  to 
either  of  his  chronometers,  and  again  six  hours  ater.  according 
to  the  same  chronometer,  and  again  six  hours  later,  according 
to  the  same  chomometer,  and  once  more  at  6  p.  m.,  accordmg 
to  the  same  chronometer,  on  April  7.  .  tt  . 

If  he  had  done  so,  he  could  have  measured  Henson  s 
shadow  with  a  rope,  or  anything  else  that  would  neither  contract 
nor  expand,  and  having  ascertained  that  all  four  shadows  were 
almost  exactly  of  the  same  length,  he  would  have  known  th  at 
he  was  at  the  pole.  Then  he  could  have  made  a  record  of  thM 
transaction  and  explained  it  to  Henson,  and  have  shown  the 
record  to  him,  and  then,  when  they  returned  to  the  United 
States,  they  could  have  corroborated  each  other  in  verifying 
the  record  by  telling  that  simple  test.  If  Peary  had  used  that 
test  with  that  result,  the  whole  world  would  have  been  con- 
vinced of  his  presence  at  the  North  Pole,  because  that  is  the 
only  spot  on  the  surface  of  the  globe  where  the  shadows  cast  by 
an  upright  body,  from  time  to  time  during  «4  hours,  would  be 
or  jilmost  exact  equal  length,  except  that  the  sanae  wndition 
would  be  true  at  the  South  Pole  in  October,  but  not  in  April. 

Mat  Henson  is  said  to  be  a  fairly  intelligent  colored  man, 
but  Peary  does  not  claun  to  have  said  or  shown  him  anything 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  North  Pole  which  would  enable  Henson 
to  corroborate  or  contradict  anytliing  Peary  reported  relevant 
to  hw  latitude  at  any  particular  time  or  relevant  to  his  presence 
at  the  pole  at  any  time.  Every  man  who  asks  a  court  to  accept 
his  version  of  any  question  of  fact  is  required  by  law  to  funMS" 
the  best  available  evidence  to  support  his  contention.  And  if 
he  asks  the  court  to  decide  the  issue  in  his  favor  from  his  own 
uncorroborated  statement,  when  the  circumsUnces  «re  such 
that  corroboration  \a  practical,  if  his  statement  were  true,  the 
absence  of  corroboration  weighs  heavily  against  his  contention. 
Peary's  alleged  presence  at  the  North  Pole  in  Apnl.  1909, 
is  unsupported  by  any  evidence  whatever,  except  h«  own 
statement  that  certain  observations  on  the  sun  on  Apnl  6  and 
7  were  correctly  recorded  in  his  notebook.  That  statement 
does  not  amount  to  evidence,  because  it  is  only  a  self-serving 
aUtement  made  by  a  man  in  his  own  behalf,  and  also  because, 
even  if  the  observations  which  he  made  were  correctly  recorded 
in  his  notebook  no  man  can  deduce  his  presence  near  the  pole 


Appendix  III 


509 


from  those  observations  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  did  not 
take  his  local  longitude  into  account  at  all  nor  have  any  meana 
of  knowing  the  local  time  at  which  he  took  any  observation 
whatever. 

Again,  referring  to  the  friendly  computations,  recently 
made  by  the  gentlemen  in  behalf  of  the  National  Geographic 
Society,  from  Peak's  recorded  observations,  it  will  be  observed, 
from  the  hearings  recently  had  by  the  Naval  Affairs  Committee, 
that  they  were  made  by  a  Mr.  Duvall,  but  were  presented  to  the 
committee  by  Mr.  Hugh  C.  Mitchell,  who  claimed  to  have 
verified  them  after  Mr.  Duvall  made  them,  and  who  claimed 
that  the  observations  furnished  by  Mr.  Peary,  from  which  the 
computations  were  made,  could  not  have  been  made  m  Wash- 
ington, New  York,  or  Boston.     But  it  wiU  be  observed  that 
before  Mr.  Mitchell  was  allowed  to  make  his  sUtement  before 
the  committee  m  regard  to  the  computation  of  the  observations, 
1^'   o    f '"'"«""•  a  member  of  the  committee  of  the  Geo- 
graphic Society,  who  passed  upon  Peary's  proofs  and  stated 
that  his  observations  could  be  faked  in  the  city  of  Washington 
had  to  stand  sponsor  for  Mr.  Mitchell;  and  ht;nce  I  am  inclined 
to  think  that  an  unbiased  person  can  not  afford  to  give  much 
credit  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Mitchell  when  viewed  by  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Peary  s  friends  upon  the  committee  would  not 
permit  him  to  be  heard  until  he  had  been  vouched  for  by  Mr 
littman,  who  had  stated  before  the  same  committee  that 
Peary  s  proofs  could  be  faked.    It  will  be  bom«  in  mind  that 
the  computations  presented  by  Mr  MitcheU  must  have  been 
made  at  least  «0  months  after  the  alleged  discovery  of  the  pole 
was  said  to  have  been  made  and  therefore  must  be  received  m 
the  light  of  an  afterthought,  and  we  all   know  what   "after 
thoughts    mean  when  they  are  used  for  the  purpose  of  supplyimr 
somethm^  that  was  lacking  in  the  original.  ft-  .^"*b 

Mr.  Mitchell  was  cautious  enough  to  say,  however,  in  re- 
sponse to  a  question  as  to  whether  it  was  possible  to  have  made 
the  figures  embra  cd  m  the  observations  submitted  by  Peary 
in  Washington,  New  York,  or  Boston,  that  that  was  a  matto*  <rf 
opinion,  but  that  he  believed  all  men  who  had  had  much  «- 
periwice  in  computing  would  agree  with  him  that  such  things 
could  not  be  faked.  He  admitted  that  Peary's  observations 
were  imperfect.  In  fact,  stated  that  there  was  no  such  thmg 
Bs  perfect  observations,  but  stated  that  if  he  had  enough  in- 
accurate observations  he  could  figure  out  correct  observations. 
Such  stalwnents,  I  am  sure,  will  not  appeal  to  anyone  who 


I 

4 


■f 


1 


«10 


Ha$  th$  North  Pol»  Btm  Diteamed 


thinks  tot  hiiMelf ,  unlew  the  degree  of  maocuracjr  of  the  ob- 
servations is  known.    In  fact,  Mr.  MitcheU's  testimony  from 
start  to  finish  indicates  rank  presumption  and  wild  guesswork 
cmiceming  everything  he  did  in  connection  wiUi  the  computa- 
tion of  the  observations  submitted  by  Peary.    He  ev«i  guessed 
at  the  time  of  the  chronometer  that  Peary  had  with  him  at  the 
pole  when  he  knew  that  "time"  at  that  pomt  was  the  most 
material  feature  connected  with  the  observations  made  during 
the  80  hours  that  Peary  claims  to  have  been  at  the  pole.    He 
contended  that  he  had  found  Peary's  time  at  the  pole  »»'•«* 
of  the  fact  that  experts  had  examined  the  chronometCT  befme 
Pearv  left  New  York  and  predicted  that  it  would  run  slow,  but 
when  returned  to  the  same  experts  for  examination,  after  Mr. 
Peaiy's  return,  it  disclosed  that  it  had  actuaUjr  gained  time. 
And  yet,  upon  such  guesswork,  wild  speculations,  and  un- 
reasonable assumptions,  we  are  asked  to  find  tl»t  Po^y  J'" 
at  the  pole  according  to  the  computntions  of  Mr.  Mitehell. 
No;  I  will  not  say  "  at  theiwle, "  because,  with  all  of  his  guessing, 
speculations,  and  assumptions,  he  could  not  get  him  nearer 
Uian  16-10  miles  of  the  pole.  ,  ^^ 

I  am  advised  that  in  order  to  obtain  correct  observaUons 
at  or  near  the  pole  the  time  must  be  accurate  and  that  the 
sun's  altitude  must  be  correctiy  fixed,  and  tiiat  such  time- 
pieces as  Peary  carried  imder  ordinary  conditions  were  not 
correct  enough  for  ordinary  obsjrvations,  und  that  in  the  Arctic 
the  ♦.ondJtions  are  extraordinary;  that  the  instiiunents  for 
weeks  are  thrown  about  upon  the  rough  trail  of  pack  ice  and 
that  the  delicate  mechanism  is  subjected  to  terapwatures 
ranging  from  that  of  the  body,  at  plus  98«  F.,  to  ^  ^^  '"« 
freezing  point,  a  change  of  over  100*  F.,  that  imder  such  oon- 
ditimis  the  expansion  and  contractiwi  of  metalii  renHer  accuracy 
impossible,  and  hence  any  pretended  ascertanimfcnt  of  time 
at  the  pole  after  a  iaumey  of  over  400  miles  over  a  rough  course 
(rf  ice  ond  a  hard  climate  would  have  to  be  based  upon  the  wildMt 
kmd  of  a  guess.  With  the  gu««sworV  time  timt  Pearv  dauned 
to  have  had  with  him  at  the  pole  he  claims  to  have  taken  s<»ne 
of  his  observations  when  the  sun  was  less  than  7'  above  the 

**"The  CHAIRMAN.    The   Chair  desires  to  rotify   Uie 
genUeman  from  Arkansas  that  he  has  consumed  one  lour  of  his 

time.    He  may  proceed.  „,...,         .         •    » 

Mr.   MACON.    Thank  you.    Well-mformed  navigatmn 
inmst  that  observations  of  the  sun  when  less  than  7°  above  the 


^'M 


Appendix    III 


611 


horiBon,  under  the  best  of  conditioiui,  in  temperate  climates 
where  centuries  have  taught  us  rulesi  for  correction,  can  not 
be  considered  seriously.  It  seems  that  in  the  Arctic  this  prob- 
lem assumes  a  still  more  serious  aspect. 

The  temperature  is  low  and  tne  air,  over  a  moving  sea  of 
ice,  is  chaif^  with  frocen  humidity,  and  the  atmosphere  is  also 
arranged  in  stratas  ol  varying  temperatiu«  and  deniiity,  all  of 
which  so  distorts  the  sun's  rays  cha.  no  correct  allowance  can 
be  made  for  refraction,  and  it  is  msisted  that  this  is  not  a  matter 
of  slight  inaccuracy,  but  can  be  a  matter  of  degrees.  Therefore, 
because  of  imperfect  time  and  imknowable  refraction,  we  can 
not  regard  observations  of  the  sun  as  being  of  value  in  proving 
a  position  on  the  polar  sea.  It  is  insisted  that  if  an  observer 
is  far  oiough  north  to  have  only  7*  for  a  meridian  altitude  of  the 
sun,  that  it  is  impossible  for  one  to  get  his  horizon.  They  con- 
tend that  his  visible  horiion  is  obstructed  by  land  or  hiunmocks 
of  ice,  or  Fx>th,  and,  of  course,  is  useless  and  that  he  can  not 
bring  an  artificial  horiion  into  play  with  a  7"  altitude,  for  at 
such  an  angle  he  would  only  get  a  streak  of  light  across  it,  but 
that  he  would  have  to  have  an  altitude  of  17°  to  90"  to  get  a 
true  reflecti<Mi  of  the  sun's  disk  under  favorable  weather  con- 
ditions. Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  with  guem-work  time  any 
obser\'ations  taken  at  such  low  altitude  as  Peary  cliums  to  have 
taken  his,  renders  them  within  the  impossibilities. 

Explorers,  navigators,  and  scientists  also  contend  that 
latitude  observations  on  the  sun  can  be  manufactured  and 
fan  not  be  detected  unless  there  should  'je  a  contradiction  or  an 
error  in  the  discance  traveled  between  stations,  but  that  a 
reascHiably  shrewd  person  could  adjust  the  distwices  so  that 
they  wouki  tally  with  the  observations.  They  al*^  contend 
that  the  admiralty  chart  shows  that  at  Cape  Columbia  the 
mjupietic  needle  makes  an  angle  <rf  186»  with  the  true  north, 
and  that  f  his  may  varv  as  one  moves  toward  the  pole,  and  hence 
it  wouki  lie  impossible  to  use  the  needle  with  any  confidence 
unlets  its  variatums  were  tested  on  the  way,  and  that  if  the  tests 
were  made  by  the  sun  at  midnight  an  error  of  the  chronometer 
would  give  a  wnmg  direction.  Therefore,  when  we  consider 
the  c(»tentions  of  these  men  of  learning  and  experience,  how 
unreascmable  it  i  i  to  ask  the  public  to  believe  that  Peary's 
reports  of  his  straight  and  rapid  travel  to  the  pole,  of  his  ob- 
servations and  soundings,  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  carry 
conviction  oi  his  discovoy  of  the  pole. 


51S 


Hat  the  North  Pole  bet  n  Diteovend 


,f> 


^M^ 


Let  U8  punue  hU  so-called  proofs  a  little  further  and  see 
what  we  can  find  in  them  timi  lias  not  been  disclosed. 

He  states  that  he  reniained  on  and  about  the  pole  from 
6  a.  m.  of  April  6,  1909,  until  4  p.  m.  of  April  7,  wht  he  be^an 
his  homeward  journey ;  that  he  took  a  number  of  (^MervaU<NU 
while  there;  that  the  weather  during  his  sUy  at  the  pole  was 
cahn  and  cloudless,  but  two  pictures  of  the  Bags  that  he  hoisted 
while  there,  that  appear  on  pages  «84  and  890  of  his  book, 
cimtradict  his  sUtement  as  to  th«*  cahnness  of  the  wither,  for 
they  appear  to  have  been  struck  by  a  gale,  and  those  that 
appear  on  page  298  contradict  his  statement  as  to  the  cleamMS 
of  the  weather,  for  they  wpear  to  have  been  taken  when  the 
sky  was  overcast  by  clouds.  .....  .   ,      .•      n 

His  sUtement  as  to  condiUons  bemg  calm  and  cloudless 
are  significant  when  we  ccmiider  the  fact  that  it  was  necessanr 
for  them  to  be  so  if  any  scientific  value  is  to  be  attached  to  the 
observations  that  he  clauned  to  have  made.  But  of  all  the 
remarkable  and  impossible  things  that  he  claims  to  have  done 
leems  to  have  been  d<me  "between  sleeps."  while  he  was  at  or 
near  the  pole.  He  says  that  after  Uking  an  observat  .on  at  nooii 
an  April  6  he  took  a  short  nap.  as  he  was  unmensely  laUgued. 
but  could  not  sleep  long.  At  6  p.  m.  of  April  6.  same  day,  he 
was  up  and  out  again.  After  this  sleep  he  sajrs  he  went  10 
miles  beyond  **»«  camp,  reachmg  there  at  midnight,  where  he 
took  observaticms  and  returned  to  the  camp  again  at  8  a.  m. 
of  April  7;  thence  started  out  again  8  miles  toward  the  right  and 
returned  in  time  to  make  a  noon  observation  and  to  start  back 
for  land  at  4  p.  m.,  taking  a  sounding  of  1,500  fathwns,  and 
reaching  camp  26  in  good  time  on  April?.  This  is  reckoned  by 
explorers  and  navigators  to  make  a  total  distance  <rf  72  miles 
traveled  between  sleeps,  which  is  equal  to  82.8  stotute  miles, 
and,  allowing  10  per  cent  for  detours,  and  so  forth,  would  make 
91.8  statute  miles  traveled  between  sleeps,  when,  accordmg  to 
his  own  statement,  he  was  so  fatigued  the  day  before  that  he 
could  not  sleep  very  much,  and  it  must  be  understood  Uiat, 
while  doing  this,  he  alleges  that  he  st<H>ped  l<mp  enough  to 
make  18  dbservations  and  an  attempted  wundmg  of  1,400 
fathoms.  Is  it  possible  for  any<me  to  believe  that  a  human 
being  could  travel  over  a  distance  of  01.8  miles,  over  broken 
fields  of  ice,  make  IS  observations,  and  make  a  sounding  of  1% 
tniles  deep  between  sleeps?  I  insist  that  such  a  thmg  can  not 
be  done,  and  no  one  who  has  any  knowledge  of  the  Umitations 


kifJ 


Appmdix  III 


BIS 


upon  human  enchirance  will  for  a  moment  contend  that  it  can 
be  done. 

There  are  wnne  thinn  that  we  can  not  afford  to  believe;  if 
we  do,  it  wcnild  be  a  refle<'tion  upon  our  intelligence.  For  in- 
stance, if  a  hundred  witnesses  were  to  swear  that  they  saw  a  man 
stand  flatfooted  and  leap  over  the  Capitol  Building  we  would 
Icnow  at  once  that  the  testimony  was  false  because  the  feat  would 
be  a  physical  impossibility.  If  I  were  to  walk  into  the  House 
some  morning,  just  as  the  Speaker  rapped  his  gavel  for  order. 
Mid  mform  Members  that  I  had  walked  to  Baltunoie  and  back 
Mnce  breakfast,  and  were  to  exhibit  a  copy  of  the  Baltimore 
Sun  as  proof  of  my  statement,  no  one  would  believe  it  because 
they  would  know  that  the  act  was  a  physical  impossibility,  and 
so  when  Mr.  Peary  says  he  traveled  the  great  distance  that  he 
did  between  sleeps,  made  18  observations  and  a  sounding  of 
1,500  fathoms,  we  at  once  know  that  it  could  not  be  true  because 
such  a  thing  would  be  beyond  human  endurance  and  acoom- 
pnahment. 

According  to  Peary's  statements  before  the  Navai  Affairs 
Committee,  his  movements,  after  Bartlett  turned  back  were  as 
uncertain,  unstable,  and  as  unreliable  as  the  wind.  He  took 
no  observations  except  at  or  near  the  pole,  and  hence  his  eveiy 
act  or  movement  was  based  upon  guesses  and  estimates. 
Everythin([  seemed  to  be  of  a  negative  or  indefinite  character 
from  the  time  Bartlett  turned  back  until  his  final  appearance 
before  the  Geographic  Society  in  Washington,  that  paoied  upon 
his  proofs. 

He  said  that  he  did  not  remember  to  have  tokl  any  (me  of 
his  discovery  upon  his  return  except  Bartlett.  and  I  have  heard 
of  no  one  who  ever  heard  of  his  having  tdd  Bartlett  of  it  until 
he  ma^ie  the  statement  before  the  committee.  Messrs.  Gannett 
and  Tittman  said  that  there  was  no  evidence  before  them  of  his 
ever  havma  toW  anyone  that  he  had  discovered  the  pole  until 
he  flashed  his  wire  to  New  York  to  that  effect,  and  that  was 
only  done  after  he  had  heard  that  Cook  had  reported,  a  short 
time  before,  that  he  had  discovered  the  pole.  Goitlemen  will 
bear  in  mind  that  he  insisted  that  this  was  the  crowning  glory 
of  his  life,  and  most  important  event  of  his  existence  and  yH 
there  is  no  evidence  except  his  self-serving  statement,  that  he 
had  ever  disclosed  his  discovery  to  any<me  until  after  he  heard 
that  Dr.  Cook  daimed  to  have  discovered  the  pole.  He  says 
that  he  met  Mr.  Whitney  on  his  way  home,  but  that  he  does  not 
remember  to  have  talked  to  him  about  his  discovery  at  all  and 


MiatOCOPY   RESOLUTION   TEST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0    Ifx^  u- 


I.I 


■  03 

TT     13.6 


25 
2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


A  /APPLIED  IfVMGE    Inc 

^r*  1653   East   Main   StrMt 

Ss  Rochester.   New   Vork        14609       USA 

.as  (716)   482  -  0300  -  Phone 

^=  (716)   288  -  5989  -  fox 


514 


Has  Ou  North  Pole  Been  DUcovend 


that  he  does  not  remember  whether  Whitney  even  asked  him 

anything  about  it.  ,    ,  ,  j  •    iu 

Think  of  it,  gentlemen,  this  man  had  been  engaged  m  the 
crowning  act  of  his  life  and  claims  to  have  been  successful,  and 
he  knew  that  Mr.  Whitney,  himself  a  sportsman  and  explorer, 
knew  that  he  had  been  in  search  of  the  pole  for  nearly  a  year, 
and  then,  when  he  met  him  in  an  isolated  Und,  where  men 
would  be  only  too  glad  to  converse  about  the  things  that  were 
nearest  to  their  hearts,  he  does  not  remember  to  have  even 
hinted  at  the  matter  to  Whitney  or  whether  Whitaey  hmted  at 
the  matter  to  hun.    Do  you  think  that  an  act  of  an  ordinary 

man  in  dealing  with  the  supreme  affair  of  his  lifei'  

He  does  not  remember  whether  the  National  Geographic 
Society  requested  him  to  submit  his  proofs  or  whether  he  asked 
that  they  be  considered  by  it;  when  it  was  agreed  that  he  was 
to  appear  and  submit  them,  he  did  not  even  remember  what 
time  crfday  he  reached  Washington;  that  he  did  not  remember 
when  or  where  he  first  saw  the  members  of  the  Geographic 
Society;  that  he  thought  he  saw  them  at  Admiral  Chester  s 
house  in  the  evening  of  the  day  he  a^^ved  in  Wwhington,  but 
did  not  remember  who  was  there.    He  said  that  he  thought  he 
submitted  his  journal  that  he  kept  upon  his  trip  to  Uie  Society 
for  its  consideration,  but  that  he  did  not  remember  whetter  any 
of  them  read  it  through  or  not.    Messrs.  Gannett  and  Tittman 
stated  that  the  reports  they  had  before  them  when  they  passed 
upon  his  case  were  made  upon  independent  slips  of  paper,  and 
they  did  not  remember  to  have  seen  any  diaiy  or  journal. 
PewT  stated  that  he  did  not  remember  when  the  committee 
examined  his  instruments,  but  that  he  thought  it  was  done  at 
night  at  the  raikoad  station  m  Washington;  but  he  did  not 
remember  to  what  extent  the  examination  was  made.     Ihrnk 
of  it,  gentiemen.    Do  you  think  that  if  you  were  trying  to  have 
the  crowning  act  of  your  life  consummated  that  you  would  not 
have  some  definite  knowledge  about  anythmg  that  was  done 
in  connection  with  its  consummation?    Do  you  feaUy  bdieve 
that  this  man  knew  nothing  of  a  positive  character  about  the 
matter,  or  rather,  do  you  beheve  that  he  was  a'^wd  ^  make 
positive  statement,  for  fear  he  would  be  flatiy,^^^*^*^*®?/^ 
others,  and  in  tliat  way  his  whole  story  repudiated  to  the  letter? 
The  gentieman  exhibited  to  the  committ«5  a  htUe  book 
that  he  said  was  the  journal  or  a  diary  of  his  tnp;  said  that  he 
prepared  it  in  his  igloo  each  night  before  retirmg.  but  he  refused 
to  leave  the  book  with  the  committee,  saymg  that  it  had  never 


Appendix  HI 


616 


been  out  of  his  possession,  and  that  he  did  not  care  for  it  to  get 
out  of  his  possession,  and  when  one  considers  its  dean  appear- 
ance, after  having  made  the  long  journey  that  he  claims  to  have 
made,  and  under  the  trying  conditions  that  he  claims  to  have 
existed,  and  under  the  circumstances  surrounding  his  oppor- 
tunity for  preparing  and  keeping  it,  no  very  great  surprise 
could  be  felt  as  to  why  he  did  not  want  it  to  get  out  of  his 
possession.  He  claimed  that  his  chief  food  was  penunican,  and 
that  it  consisted  of  about  30  per  cent  grease;  that  he  held  it 
with  his  hand  when  he  ate  it,  and  hence  grease  and  smear  must 
have  been  left  on  his  hand,  and  yet  he  prepared  his  diary  with 
that  hand  and  never  made  a  single  smear  upon  a  single  page 
of  the  entire  book  while  he  was  doing  it.  Such  a  thing  may  have 
heea  possible,  but  I  do  not  believe  it. 

It  is  much  more  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  prepared  it  in 
some  office  after  his  return  home  than  it  is  to  believe  that  he 
prepared  it  in  the  igloo  under  the  cimunstances  and  oondHtions 
described  by  him.  Another  strange  and  unbelievable  part  of 
his  narrative,  as  detailed  in  the  hearings  before  the  committee, 
was  that  he  did  not  discover  any  current  in  the  Arctic  ocean. 
From  the  descriptions  he  gave  from  many  leads  he  encountered 
on  his  trip,  caused  by  the  parting  of  ice  20  or  Sfi  feet  thick,  it  was 
supposed  that  a  ciirrent  of  water  beneath  the  ice  caused  such  a 
pressure  as  it  swept  along  that  it  parted  the  ice  and  made  the 
leads,  but  he  insisted  that  the  thick  ice  was  parted  by  the  wind; 
but  full  credit  can  not  be  given  to  that  statement  because  of 
the  discredit  that  he  himself  placed  upon  it  by  saying  that  when 
they  were  going  to  the  pole  they  marked  their  track  at  intervals 
by  placing  tin  cans  upon  ice  ridges,  so  that  th^  could  readily 
see  them  on  their  return  trip. 

It  is  absurd  to  think  that  a  wind  that  was  strong  enough 
to  break  ice  20  or  26  feet  thick  could  not  blow  every  can  ofif 
of  an  ice  ridge  that  it  was  possible  for  his  party  to  place  upon 
them,  and  not  only  blow  them  off,  but  blow  them  so  far  and  in 
so  many  directions  as  to  completely  destroy  their  efficacy  as 
guides  upon  the  homeward  traSl.  If  his  story  about  the  wind 
being  powerful  enough  to  part  the  ice  is  true,  then  Uie  story 
about  the  cans  setting  upon  ice  ridges  for  sevend  days  un- 
molested by  the  wind  can  not  be  true.  But  in  order  to  under- 
stand the  si^ificance  of  both  stories  it  is  necessary  to  know  that 
the  ioe-partmg  story  was  told  to  overcome  the  suggesticm  of  a 
current  in  the  sea  that  would  interfere  with  his  making  a  sound- 
ing 1^  miled  deep,  and  the  story  about  the  tin  cans  setting 


I 
III 


•:m« 


516 


Hat  the  Noriii  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


upon  ice  ridges  for  several  days  was  tx>ld  to  explain  how  it  was 
that  he  could  travel  so  rapidly  on  his  homeward  journey,  they 
being  used  as  guide  posts,  and  in  that  way  preventing  any  loss 
of  time  in  a  search  for  his  trail. 

I  have  givoi  more  time  and  thought  to  this  alleged  dis- 
covery than  I  have  to  any  other  public  question  that  I  remember 
to  have  undertaken  to  investigate  in  my  whole  life,  and  the  more 
I  have  investigated  and  studied  the  story  the  more  thoroughly 
convinced  have  I  become  that  it  is  a  fake  pure  and  simple. 
There  is  an  old  saying  that  it  takes  many  men  of  many  minds 
to  make  a  world,  and  in  (»tler  to  place  a  true  estimate  up<m  the 
acts  of  moi  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  take  into  account  the 
different  dispositions  of  the  "many  men  of  many  minds" 
mentioned  in  the  old  adage.  I  have  had  some  men  to  tell  me 
that  th^  believed  Peary  discovered  the  pole,  because  they 
could  not  understand  how  a  man  in  his  position  in  life  would 
make  a  claim  of  having  discovered  it  unless  he  had  really  done 
so.  That  kind  of  a  statement  presupposes  that  men  occupying 
responsible  positions  in  life  always  tell  the  truth  about  their 
achievem«its,  but  we  can  not  afford  to  accept  that  kind  of  a 
supposition  as  a  true  guide  about  the  acts  of  men,  it  makes  no 
difference  how  important  the  position  <«  how  high  the  standing 
held  by  them. 


.'ii--\! 


APPENDIX  IV 
ANALYSIS 

OF 

MR.  MITCHELL'S  STATEMENTS 

BEFORE  THE 

CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEE 

WITH 

SUMMARY  OP  ANALYSIS 

BT 

W.  J.  ARMBRUSTER 
Pebbttabt  19, 1911. 

ANALYSIS  OF  MR.  MIT  JHELL'S  STATEMENTS 

It  is  not  unfair,  in  examing  the  testimony  of  a  witness,  to 
inquire  whether  the  witness  has  any  interest  in  the  matter  at 
issue.  Mr.  O.  H.  Tittmann  was  one  of  the  prime  leaders  of  the 
movemoit  to  have  Mr.  Peaiy  dedared  the  discoverer  of  the 
Worth  Pde.  Mr.  Tittmann  was  a  member  of  the  committee 
of  the  National  Geographic  Society  which  so  hastily  and 
unsaent^cally  declared  in  favor  of  Mr.  Peary,  and  is  so  deckred 
on  Mr.  Peaiy's  statements  alone,  having  absolutely  no  corrob- 
orative proof  of  any  kind  whatever,  personal  or  otherwise. 
This  committee,  and  the  National  Geographic  Society,  knowing 
Its  laches  and  guilt,  are  interested  in  covering  up  thar  wrongfiu 

M* V'u  Tittoiann .testified  to  the  great  ability  of  Ni.  Hugh 
MitcheU,  one  of  the  computers  in  the  Coast  and  Geodetic 
burvey,  stotmg  that  he  considered  Mr.  MitcheU  unsurpassed 
m  t^t  Ime  of  work  anywhere.    We  will  see.    Mr.  Tittmann  is 

Sf  iK?^^*®?**™'  °'  ^^  ^^'*****  '^^  Geodetic  Survey.  Prac- 
waity,  the  rdation  of  employer  and  employee  exists  between 
him  and  Mr.  Mitchell. 

.,  In  examining  Mr.  Mitchell's  testimony,  it  is  found  that 
throughout  his  examination,  he  is  guilty  of  substituting  one 

517 


I 


y 


518 


Has  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


problem  for  another.  He  diverts  the  minds  of  the  committee 
from  the  vital  issue  to  one  that  is  absolutely  unimportant. 
He  has  directed  their  minds  to  minute  errors  of  latitude,  which 
are  of  no  value  whatever  and  have  no  bearing  on  the  real  issue 
and  strangely ,_  more  than  suspiciously,  completely  avoids  the 
factors  of  longitude,  which,  when  examined  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Peary's  other  sta.  ments,  topple  to  utter  ruin  the  structure 
devised  by  him. 

The  whole  foundation  of  Mr.  Mitchell's  presentment  is 
based  upon  the  condition  that  he  accepts  Mr.  Peary's  state- 
ments that  Mr.  Peary  was  at  a  certain  place.  He  accepts  Mr. 
Peary's  observations — ^within  trifling  corrections,  of  no  im- 
portance whatever — as  having  actually  been  made  at  the 
time  and  plac  claimed  by  Mr.  Peary,  because  he  does  not 
believe  an  observation  can  be  faked.  This  is  equivalent  to 
saying  that  skilled  astronomers  cannot  within  reasonable 
limit  of  error  predict  or  calculate  in  advance  the  occurrence  of 
an  eclipse. 

A  peculiar  anomaly  arises  from  this  holding  of  Mr.  Mitchell: 

(a) .  y  *  Dr.  Cook  should  submit  one  or  two  polar  observations 
with  which  no  serious  fault  can  be  found,  then,  according  to  Mr. 
Mitchell,  Dr.  Cook  reached  the  Pole.  According  to  Mr.  Mitchell, 
all  that  Dr.  Cook  has  to  do  is  to  submit  one  or  two  reasonably 
accurate  polar  laLitude  observations  and  that  will  be  sufficient 
proof  that  he  was  at  the  Pole,  and  Mr.  MitcheU  vkll  be  bound 
by  his  mm  testimony  as  well  as  those  who  have  held  similarly. 

(b).  If  it  can  be  shown  that  Mr.  Peary  contradicts  him- 
self so  forcibly  in  his  observations  as  to  thoroughly  impugn 
his  claims,  then  to  that  extent  Mr.  Mitchell  is  justified  in  his 
opinion  that  such  observations  cannot  be  faked,  but  it  would 
be  the  very  party  the  validity  of  whose  claims  he  ai^es  for, 
who  would  be  found  to  have  {lerpetrated  a  fake. 

_A  further  anomaly  arises  in  this.  Suppose  an  explorer, 
wishing  to  fake  an  observation,  either  figures  it  out  for  hunself, 
or  has  some  expert  computer  make  one  for  him,  then  submits 
it  privately  to  a  few  more  expert  computers,  friends  of  his,  for 
examination  and  correction  before  publication.  When  the 
observation  is  published,  it  has  already  nm  the  gauntlet  of  the 
experts,  and,  being  perfect,  no  fault  can  be  found  with  it. 
And  wise  men  of  Congress  swallow  such  balderdash. 

The  principal  specific  statements  of  Mr.  Mitchell  will  now 
be  examined  in  detail. 


rrf  t 


Appendix  IV 


519 


io«  \   .Mr.  MitcheU  said,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Engelbright,  page 
180  of  the  Committee  Record,  ^^^ 

"From  the  two  observations  six  hours  apart,  t.  «.,  the  one 
on  Apnl  7,  at  6  a.  m.  and  on  the  same  day  at  noon)  I  could 
detemune  both  latitude  and  longitude." 

This  certainly  is  not  a  very  accurate  statement  coming 
from  an  expert.  It  is  very  misleading.  Mr.  Mitchell  could 
only  take  the  record  of  observations  submitted  by  Mr  Peary 
and  subject  them  to  niceties  of  corrections  based  on  corrected 
ume  of  the  chronometers,  errors  in  instruments,  etc.,  all  minor 
and  unimportant  «tcept  for  higher  science  purposes.  No  one 
w;ould  quarrel  with  an  explorer  for  such  errors.  Here  the 
niceties  of  calcuktions  are  confused  with  the  question  of  whether 
the  claimed  observations  of  Mr.  Peaiy  ho-e  any  basis  of  fact. 

All  the  answers  by  Mr.  MitcheU  to  questions  of  the  rate  of 
loss  or  gain  m  the  chronometers  apply  merely  to  matters  of 
latitude  and  show  for  themselves  they  are  of  no  importr^-xs. 
and  too  msignificant  to  affect  the  question  one  way  or  ^  other, 
Ihey  do  not  apply  to  the  question  of  longitude,  and  go  merely 
to  the  pomt  of  how  accurate  Mr.  Peary's  latitude  daims  are, 
prondtng  they  are  true,  but  have  no  bearings  whatever  on  the 
fueftum  of  whether  they  are  true.  They  are  altogether  foreim 
to  the  issue.  * 

k-     *;  TiJ^n^'**^?*®^  **y*  *«*'"♦  referring  to  the  plot  made  by 
him  of  Mr.  Peary's  route,  page  136  of  the  Record: 

"TTie  point  marked  Camp  Jessup  is  the  result  of  that 
computation  of  two  sets  of  observations  on  the  morning  of  the 

tSoT^  °*         °         '*"*'  ***  °***^  "*  ^^•^'  ^'^«"»*»«  Meridian 

Mr.  Mitchell  plainly  has  blundered  in   stating    that    the 
fames  6:40  and  1«:40  are  Columbia  Meridian  (70  West)  time. 

Jfe  *"°r,^'^«^=°?  *?**  ^*"^  Columbia  meridian  time,  the 
6:40  and  12:40  refemng  to  60th  meridian  time.  Mr.  Peary 
m  his  statemwits  uses  Columbia  meridian  or  70  West  time 
whUe  the  fac-simile  of  his  claimed  observations  show  by  com- 
parison they  are  60  West  time.  This  is  shown  by  the  foUowine 
and  also  proves  conclusively  that  Mr.  MitcheU  is  in  complete 
error  in  the  standard  of  time  used  by  him  for  his  computations 
(a).    Mr.  Peary  says  in  his  book,  page  886,  referring  to 


I    i 


690 


Haa  the  NorA  Pole  Been  Ditcovered 


^(;i 


m 


the  claimed  observation  of  April  6.  that  it  was  made  "  at  ajyprox- 
imate  local  noon  of  the  Columbia  meridian. "  The  fac-simile  of 
the  claimed  observation  of  this  date,  page  S62,  gives  the  time 
as  12:50,  plainly  60th  meridian  time. 

(b).  Referring  to  the  claimed  observation  at  midnight 
of  the  6th,  Mr.  Peary  says,  on  page  85  of  the  Committee  record: 

"  I  went  what  I  judged  to  be  10  miles  farther  on  in  the  same 
direction  and  took  another  series  of  observations  at  midnight 
of  the  time  I  was  carrying  'hi  call  Columbia  meridian  time. " 

Midnight  Columbi.  meridian  time  is  the  equivalent  of 
12:40  in  60th  meridian  time. 

(c).  Referring  to  the  claimed  observation  of  noon  April 
7,  Mr.  Peary  says: 

On  Page  S90  of  his  book:— 

"Again  I  retiuned  to  the  camp  in  tiiu>  ^or  a  final  and  com- 
pletely satisfactory  series  of  observations  on  April  7  at  noon 
Columbia  meridian  time." 

Therefore,  nta  1S:40  Columbia  meridian  time,  at  Mr. 
MitduU  puis  it. 

On  page  40  of  the  Committee  record, 

"Spent  day  with  light  sledge,  double  team  going  East  and 
West.  Noon  observation  and  looking  for  a  crack  where  a 
sounding  would  be  possible." 

That  is,  the  observation  was  taken  at  noon,  not  12 :40.  The 
noon  being  12:00  Columbia  meridian  (70  West)  time;  not  12:40 
Columbia  meridian  time  as  Mr.  Mitchell  puts  it,  but  12:40 
60th  meridian  time.  The  fac-simile  of  this  claimed  observation, 
page  292  of  the  book,  gives  the  time  as  12:40  p.  m.  which,  to 
correspond  with  noon  Coliunbia  meridian  time,  must  be  60th 
meridian  West  time. 

Such  an  error  in  the  standard  of  time  for  his  computations 
should  not  have  been  made  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  as  the  slightest 
care  taken  in  the  comparisons  shows  plainly  that  Mr.  Peary  uses 
local  or  Columbia  meridian  (70  West)  time  in  his  statements, 
while  the  claimed  observations,  to  correspond,  must  be  60th 
meridian  time. 

Mr.  MitcheU,  as  expert  computer,  makes  a  great  ado  of  nice- 


Appendix  IV 


581 


itef  tn  oaleulatunu,  mtnute  tnattert  bated  an  an  error  of  ten 
m/nviee  tnthehme  of  the  chronometer,  yet  hinue{fin  hie  aeeumption 
Of  the  ttandard  hme  erre  to  an  extent  four  Hmee  ae  great  a*  *hm  total 
error  of  the  chronometer  for  the  whoie  period  elapeed  from,  de- 
pa^refrom  New  York  to  the  date  of  the  claimed  obaervaHon  at  the 

•i.-  ^j    ''A  "Y*""   .^*^**^*«   computations  and  correctione   are 
nttated  and  hopeUesly  over-balanced,   and  rendered  worthUtt 
tnaecurate  and  far  more  erroneous  than  the  error  due  to  the  difference 
oetween  the  chronometer  and  true  time. 

8.  Next,  Mr.  MitcheU.  referring  to  the  observations  by 
Mr.  Feaiy  at  Camp  Jessup.  says,  on  page  136  of  the  report, 
referring  to  the  observations  by  Mr.  Peary  at  Camp  Jessup: 

"A  snapshot  of  the  sun.  a  single  altitude  of  one  limb,  was 
obtained  on  April  6,  when  the  sun  was  on  meridian  67H*  West  " 

The  assertion  by  Mr.  Mitchell  "when  the  sun  was  on 
meridian  67^"  West"  is  open  to  some  question.  Mr.  Peary 
says  this  observation  was  tiiken  "at  approximate  local  noon  of 
the  Columbia  meridian. "  A  man  certiiinly  knows  whether  his 
watch  mdicates  18  or  not.  When  he  says  "approximate"  he 
certamly  does  not  mean  "exact"  noon.  Therefore,  referring 
to  the  fac-fflmile  of  Mr.  Peary's  ckimed  observation,  on  page 
M2  of  hM  book,  we  find  that  the  time  is  12:50  (60th  meridSi 
time).  Mmus  10  minutes  for  averaged  fastness  of  the  chron- 
ometer up  to  time  of  observation  gives  correct  time  12:40p.m., 
60th  meridian  time.  This  wouW  pkce  tiie  sun  exactly  on  the 
70th  inendian  West,  as  tiie  ratio  is  1  degree  for  4  minutes  of 
time.  40  mmutes  equal  10  degrees,  60  plus  10  equals  70»  West. 
4.  Mr.  Mitchell  says  further,  referring  to  the  observation 
mentioned  under  8: 

"The  principal  value  of  tiiis  observation  is  to  check  the 
observations  of  the  next  day.  April  7.  when  two  completi;  setii 
of  observations  were  obtiiined  six  hours  apart  in  time,  and 
givmg  a  good  determmation  of  the  geographic  position  of  Camp 
Jessup  as  follows:  ^ 

Latitude  89"  56'  28". 
Longitude  187"  00'  West. 

N  r^^  f  "^  ^™^  ^**^^  *'*  geographical  miled  from  the 


|i 


c28 


Hat  the  North  Pole  Bern  Diaeoctrtd 


The  latitude  given  by  Mr.  Mitchell  is  a«am,  not  one  proven 
in  any  manner,  but  merely  Mr.  Peary's  Inures  corrected  by 
Mr.  Mitchell  to  the  10  minutes  the  chronometer  was  found  to  be 
fast.  (Vitiated  however  by  the  wron^  standard  of  time  assumed 
by  Mr.  Mitchell).  In  nowise  does  it.  or  can  it  apply  to  the 
question  of  the  truth  of  Mr.  Peary's  observations. 

For  instance:  A  man  can  walk  25  miles  per  day,  walking 
12  hours  per  day;  in  20  days  he  can  walk  500  miles.  Mr. 
Mitchell  nnds  that  the  num's  watch  is  not  a  perfect  time 
keeper,  that  it  runs  5  minutes  per  day  fast.  Therefore,  when 
actual  transpired  time  in  only  23  hours  56  minutes,  it  follows 
that  the  mm  did  not  walk  25  miles  per  day,  but  only  24.913 
miles  per  day,  as  he  walked  only  11  hours  57 y^  minutes  per  day 
instead  of  12  hours,  and  he  covered  in  all  498.26  milea  in  the 
20  days,  consequently  he  did  not  reach  the  coveted  goal  but 
arrived  within  1.74  miles  of  the  "magic"  point.  Wdl!  this 
man  didn't;  he  is  onlj  a  hypothetical  man.  Mr.  Mitehell 
tnittakes  the  mm  or  proUetn  for  the  aecomplithedfati. 

In  stating  that  the  observation  of  the  sun  on  k^x\\  6,  and 
the  two  observations  cm  April  7,  gave  a  good  determinatitm  of 
the  geographic  position  of  Camp  Jessup  as  being  in  latitude  89* 
55'  23"  and  longitude  ISl"  00'  West,  Mr.  Mitchell  is  guilty  of  a 
grossly  reprehensible  act,  for  absolutely  nothing  is  given  in  said 
observations  regarding  the  longitudinal  position  of  the  camp. 
It  is  nothing  less  than  a  culpable  intrusion  b^  Mr.  Mitchell  of 
vitally  important  matter  to  fill  a  serious  void  in  Mr.  Peary's 
work. 

5.  Quoting  again  from  Mr.  Mitchell's  te8tim<»iy,  on  page 
137  of  the  recond: 

"After  taking  the  observations  at  noon  of  the  6th  at 
Camp  Jessup.  the  expedition  marched  straight  ahead  10  geo- 
graphic miles  and  took  a  set  of  observations  on  the  sun,  the 
time  being  midnight,  sixtieth  meridian  (JVed)  tim^." 

In  this,  Mr.  Mitchell  is  again  in  error.  The  time,  according 
to  Mr.  Peaiy,  was  midnight  Columbia  meridian  {70th  Wed) 
Hme.  The  time,  in  BOA  meridian  Weet  time  toat  1S:40  p.  m. 
not  midnight.    This  has  been  clearly  pointed  out  under  2. 

6.  'The  continuation  of  the  quotation  under  5  is  as  follows : 

"This  line  of  travel  has  been  plotted,  amuming  that  its 
direction  is  directly  opposite  to  the  direction  of  the  sun  when 
tike  noonsight  of  April  6  was  obtained. " 


Appendix  IV 


«<8 


A  ?^  ^l'  ^^f^,«*npand  the  ruuUt  qf  ike  tnmrt  of 
Avnie  and?,  aa  htoialtnet  U  in  his  ehoH,  with  ths  ttatmunU  of 
Mr.  Peary  he  would  have  found  the  tame  to  be  in  hopeU^  vonfliet 
anddteeord.  T]m  haa  already  been  fu'Iy  covered  in  the  writer's 
^^  liM*^  m*^*'  ^^  stHtementa.  It  will  there  be  Men 
that  Mr.  MitcbeU  s  anumed  traverw  is  fatal  and  contradictory 
to  every  statement  made  by  Mr.  Peaiy  regarding  his  polw 
latitude  movement*.  Section  8  of  the  analysis  should  be 
^r^^  w  w.*.''jll  «P^«t»ou  of  the  hopeless  variance 
between  Mr.  Mitchell's  assumed  route  and  Mr.  Peaiy's  state- 
ments.   But  five  feature  of  its  incompaUbiKty  will  be  repeated 

I  •(■^j  T^^  location  of  the  camp  on  the  187th  meridian  of 
longitude  IS  totally  at  variance  with  Mr.  Peaiy's  statement 

I?  u*  '*SS"T^Pr' w'  ^^.^'^?. .''"  <^  **»«  Columbia  meridian, 
Y^ol«  70  JlVesU  Mr.  MMJi  being  in  error  W'-st  67  degrees  cf 
longitude  m  hu  loeahon  of  the  camp. 

luru  ^u\\  .?'^  ^-  ??*^  followed  the  route  plotted  by  Mr. 
Mitchell  the  sun  would  not,  as  he  states,  have  been  in  his  front 
at  midnight,  but  would  have  passed  his  front  houre  before 
midnight.  ^' 

(c).  The  traverse  shown  by  Mr.  Mitchell  is  totally  at 
variance  with  Mr.  Peaiy's  chums  that  he  passed  north  dong 
the  Columbia  meridian  seven  miles  beyond  the  pole,  and  re- 
turned north  and  aouth  directly  along  the  same  route  to  the 
''*™^JN  Th«  traverse  shown  is  neither  north  nor  eouih. 

^°]:  ^  The  location  of  the  camp  on  the  137th  meridian  is 
m  wnflict  with  Mr.  Peary's  statement  that  at  6  a.  m.  of  April 

J;  ^%^^  ':!?  "»  i«  'fe'^'^JJ  ?'  ^*»™«  Strait,  this  being 
the  170th  meridian.  Mr.  MtteheU  being  in  error  EaH  S3  degreSi 
qf  longitude  m  his  location  <rf  the  camp. 

(e).  Tie  location  of  the  camp  on  the  187th  meridian  is  in 
conflict  with  Mr.  Peary  s  statement  that  at  noon  of  April  7.  the 
camp  was  on  the  Columbia  meridian  (70  West)  Mr.  Mitchell 
bemg  in  error  West  67  degrees  of  longitude  m  his  location  of  the 
camp. 

7.    Quoting  Mr.  Mitchell  agam,  page  187  of  the  record: 

"  Chi  the  morning  of  the  7th,  when  observations  showed  that 
Camp  Jessup  was  probably  in  the  direction  of  Behring  Sea 
ftom  the  pole,  a  march  of  8  miles  was  made  in  the  direction  of 
the  sun,  under  the  beUef  it  was  being  viewed  directly  over  the 
pole.    Computotions  of  the  azimuth  of  the  sun  at  «he  time  of 


M4 


Paa  the  North  Pole  Been  Dieeoeered 


obaervKtion  (6:40  a.  m.)  showed,  however,  that  it  was  80*  to  the 
right  of  the  pole,  and  the  line  of  march  was  plotted  accordingly. " 

Mr.  Mitchell  here  again  falls  into  error  as  to  the  standard  of 
time.  The  6:40  a.  m.  time  he  plots  as  6:40  a.  m.  Columbia 
meridian  time,  when  it  is  6:40  a.  m.  60th  meridian  time,  and  the 
azimuth  of  the  sun  is  10  degrees  less  than  Mr.  Mitchell  figured  it, 
the  Sim  having  to  travel  40  minutes,  or  two-thirds  of  an  hour  in 
time,  before  it  reached  the  point  on  tbe  horison  plotted  by  Mr. 
Mitchell.    This  error  of  Mr.  Mitchell  is  against  Mr.  Peary. 

8.  As  to  Uie  traverse  plotted  by  Mr.  Mitchell.  In  answer 
to  Mr.  Rol>ert8  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Mitchell  etronaly  em- 
phasized, pages  1S8  and  ISO  of  the  report,  the  value  oj  eeveral 
oheervatioru  for  aeeuraey,  tttUing  titat  while  a  tingle  obtervation 
does  not  give  a  potition,  two  obaervaHons  do.  Then,  I  would  like 
to  know,  when  Mr.  Peary  gives,  on  April  6  at  noon,  the  location 
of  Camp  Jessup  as  <hi  the  Columbia  or  70th  West  meridian,  on 
April  7  at  6  a.  m.  the  location  of  the  same  camp  as  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Behring  Strait  or  170th  West  meridian,  and  on  April 
7  at  noon,  the  location  as  on  the  Columbia  or  70th  West  meri- 
dian, why  does  not  Mr.  Mitchell  follow  his  own  rule  and  kx»te 
the  camp  on  the  Columbia  or  70th  West  meridian,  two  out  of 
three  statements  by  Mr.  Peary  himself  locating  it  there?  But 
Mr.  Mitchell  locates  it  at  neither  of  the  positions  mentioned  by 
Mr.  Peary,  but  on  the  lS7th  meridian,  yet  no  lon^tudinal 
observations  have  been  submitted  by  Mr.  Peary,  therefore  no 
error  to  be  allowed  for  except  the  insignificant  error  of  ten 
minutes  in  the  chronometer  time. 

Mr.  Peaiy  says  that  when  he  made  camp  on  April  6,  it 
was  (m  the  Columbia  (70  West)  meridian.  What  right  or 
auUiority  has  Mr.  Mitchell  to  locate  it  on  the  lS7th  meridian? 

Mr.  Peary  says  that  when  he  returned  to  the  same  camp 
18  hours  later,  at  6  a.  m.  of  the  7th,  and  took  further  observa- 
ti<ms,  the  camp  was  in  the  direction  of  Behring  Strait,  that  is, 
the  170th  West  meridian.  What  right  or  autiiority  has  Mr. 
Mitchell  to  place  it  on  the  lS7th  meridian  West? 

R^.  Peaiy  says  that  when  he  returned  to  the  camp  again 
six  hours  later,  at  noon  of  April  7,  the  camp  was  on  the  Columbia 
meridian,  the  70th  west.  What  right  or  authority  has  Mr. 
Mitch^  to  place  it  on  the  137th  meridian  West? 

No  right  or  authority  in  any  instance.  Accepting  the 
statement  that  the  chronometer  was  10  minutes  fast.  That 
wotdd  place  Mr.  Peaiy  <m  the  67)^  degree  meridian  in  the  first 


Appendix  IV 


BU 


^d  dirtance.  Why  then  the  lS7ti  meridian  in  ^nyctmf 
OfUy  Wmtnmu  dsffermee  in  Hme  between  Mr.  Peary^,elun^ 
mjT  mul  true  hme,  yet  Mr.  MiUMl  in  the  onein!Sl!m^a 

poeition  of  the  tun  to  the  weet,  and  in  the  other  a  diiTerJ^nrl 

^rea^lS  minutee  in  the  azimuth  poeSi^tie  ZtTZ  eU 

The  timvene  plotted  l>y  Mr.  m^,^^M^  pL!5; 

route  cro«Mg  the  90th  nieridiM  West  at  M«St^^       • 
djy«p£kmgitudeatkUtude89-afi'88^i.rdBibeS»{- 
There  u  not  a  word  anywhere  by  Mr.  PiS^  toibJ^^'       ■  ^^^ 
made  such  a  route.    In  fact,  he  nJt  ody  g^JS^no  fitude  bul 
wya  he  took  no  lon«tude  obaervaUoni;  Smi  nSwKfdSS*^ 
Peaiy  aav-  o-  show  Oiat  he  was  on  th«  i*wi^  °J!.?^*^J^- 


p<l«r--Tr      u  ■"••«  " ."  ""«^»«on8,  ana  nowhere  doe*  A 
tude,  and  the  ten  mmntM  •>.»>  ;-  4i u «««*  «i  lonw- 


♦nX  -7i  Ti.    .         ■     ""  '^■'  ™  "»«  "^th  meridian  of  1< 
i^'^bie.  """"*"  '"^  ^  '^^^  chronometer  is  tol 

♦    J  J^;  ?**^  "■*»  ^e  70th  or  Columbia  meridian  hi. 

i^  ^Xt"  »;?  ""*  *^^  *^  -*'  by  him  to tStS^X 
Columbia  to  the  Pde  would  not  have  amounted  to  mow  iJS! 
about  a  mmute.  but  even  accepting  the  are/of  teTSiS^ 

puSr«ri^uI!;ili^°°/eP*^''     Van  automates; 

^Sli  MV  t^TiiT  .^f  **^        '^«  «'  the  horiaon. 

ywmg  to  Mr.  MiteheU  falselv  plott^  ^  Mr.  Pearv's  rUimll 

powtion  on  the  187th  meridian  \?c.t  li^vI^TS^^^ 

« I  haJeTttS^i^i;; : '»^-  LeS^I;^'"^*'-  "^""  ^' 

«9>crt  for  Mr  Peaiy.  not  that  of  an  imSTv^tiSTt^  Jd 
m^l^^ Tff'"r^  ^"^ extreme!^ «TXttLirj| 
wSdc^SrSfrf^i^i  G»^«t'..P»*Wy  to  bolster  up  a^e? 
Z?K.^T  ^  ^  ^ '"^^  »  ^«*  to  <J«c«  ve  tho«5  who  imJ 

I  *  J  *^«»»y  .'^M  »n  consultetion  with  Mr.  Mitchdlat  «J3. 
a  kte  day  making  a  futile  eflFort  to  patch  im  Si^  nl!^ 
but  all  «  false  and  there  is  no  truth  b  it     MrBfiSi^ 

juggle  figures  but  he  cannot  jugRle  the  ^     T^'n^fl^     "*^ 
nor  stops  at  his  beheit.    *** '"^Kie  tne  sun.    It  neither  moves 


5«6 


Has  tfu  North  Pde  Been  Discovered 


tf-.; 


An  examination  of  Mr.  Peaiy's  testimony  before  the  sub- 
committee on  Naval  affairs  shows  plainly  that  the  so-caUed 
examination  of  Mr.  Peary's  data  by  the  special  committee  of 
the  Nationd  Geographic  Society  was  the  hollowest  land  of  a 
sham  and  a  disgrace  to  science,  a  gross  imposition  and  dehberatc 
falsehood  perpetrated  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States  and 
upon  the  world.  A  perversion  of  truth  and  a  fraud  upon  history. 
Even  Mr.  Peary,  who  was  present  at  the  exammabon,  would 
not  say  that  any  one  of  the  committee  had  read  his  record,  m 
fact  he  did  say  m  effect  that  only  sUght  casual  exanunation  was 

That  men  of  eminence  should  favor  and  lend  themselves 
to  such  iniquities  passes  the  understanding. 

SUMMARY 

OF  THE  ANALYSIS  OF  MR.  MITCHELL'S  STATEMENTS 

1  Mr.  Tittmann  and  Mr.  Gannett,  as  members  of  the 
committee  of  the  National  Geographic  Society,  A^ich  so  un- 
scientifically and  grtMsly  erratically  declared  Mr.  Peary  to  be 
the  discoverer  of  the  North  Pole,  have  an  mterest  m  boUtenng 
up  Mr.  Peary's  claims  to  cover  up  their  own  iniqmties. 

2  Mr.  Tittmann  being  Superintendent  of  the  Coast  wid 
Geodetic  Survey,  and  Mr.  Mitchell,  an  expert  computer  m  tbAt 
department,  the  relationship  of  employer  and  employee  practic- 
ally exists  between  them,  and  Mr.  Mitchell's  testunony  should 
be  considered  with  that  fact  in  view.  Mr.  MitcheU  s  entry 
in  the  matter  was  not  at  the  behest  of  Congress,  but  at  the 
instance  of  his  superior  who  has  a  personal  mterest  m  the 
matter.  Why  this  use  of  a  department  employee  by  the 
Superintendent  of  his  department  in  a  matter  of  pei-sonal 
interest  to  his  superior?  .  -u  * 

8.  Throughout  Mr.  Mitchell's  testunony,  it  is  found  that 
he  is  guilty  of  substitution.  Directing  the  attention  to  romute 
errors  of  latitude  due  to  the  error  of  ten  minutes  '^^  the  time  of 
the  chronometer,  and  directing  the  attention  away  f rom  errora 
of  longitude  and  other  statements  which  show  the  utter  falsity 

of  Mr.  Peaiy's  claims.  ,,     «        . 

4  Mr.  Mitchell's  statements  are  based  upon  Mr.  Pea^^  s 
claims  bemg  true.  Nothing  that  Mr.  Mitchell  has  done  has 
any  bearing  whatever  on  the  question  of  whether  Mr.  Femry  s 
claims  are  true  or  not. 


Appendix  IV 


527 


5.  According  to  Mr.  Mitchell,  such  obsen'ations  cannot 
be  faked,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  a  skilled  astronomer 
cannot  calculate  in  advance  the  occurrence  of  an  eclipse. 

6.  According  to  Mr.  Mitchell,  such  observations  cannot 
be  faked.  Therefore,  if  Dr.  Cook  submits  reasonably  accurate 
polar  latitude  observations,  Dr.  Cook  discovered  the  Pole,  and 
Mitchell,  Gannett  and  Tittmann  and  others  who  have  held 
similarly  are  boimd  by  their  holding. 

7.  If  Mr.  Peary's  claims  to  the  discovery  of  the  Pole  are 
shown  to  be  fraudulent,  then  Mr.  Mitchell  is,  to  that  extent, 
correct,  that  observations  cannot  be  faked,  but  the  very  ob- 
servations and  the  idmtical  man,  the  validity  of  whose  observa- 
tions Mr.  Mitchell  argues  for,  would  be  found  to  be  fraudulent. 

8.  According  to  Mr.  Mitchell,  it  is  an  utter  impossibility 
to  fake  an  observation.  An  explorer,  desiring  to  fake  an  ob- 
servati<Hi,  could  not  therefore  submit  it  privately  to  one  or 
more  experts  and,  having  had  its  faults,  if  any,  corrected,  then 
submit  it  to  the  public  and  have  it  pass  muster.  This  is 
counter  to  the  present  day  experience  when  it  seems  that  all 
the  experts  and  most  of  the  professors  are  influenced  to  make 
the  truth  seem  untrue,  and  the  false  seem  true. 

9.  Mr.  Mitchell,  making  niceties  of  corrections  to  cover 
ten  minutes  error  in  the  time  of  the  chronometer,  mistakes  such 
corrections  to  be  the  establishment  of  the  truth  of  the  observa- 
tion itself.    He  mistakes  the  sum  or  problem  for  the  fact. 

10.  Mr.  Mitchell,  making  much  ado  over  niceties  of 
corrections  due  to  error  of  ten  minutes  in  the  chronometer  time, 
himself  makes  an  error  in  the  standard  of  time  four  times  as 
great  as  the  chronometer  error.  Mistaking  the  Columbia  or 
70th  West  time  for  60th  meridian  time,  thus  vitiating  and 
hopelessly  over-balancing  and  rendering  worthless  all  his  own 
calculations,  making  same  far  more  erroneous  than  any  error  due 
to  the  ten  minutes  error  of  the  chronometer. 

11.  In  stating  that  Mr.  Pearl's  observations  gave  a 
determination  of  Camp  Jessup  as  bemg  in  longitude  137°  00' 
West,  Mr.  Mitchell  is  guilty  of  a  grossly  reprehensible  act,  being 
a  culpable  intrusion  by  Mr.  Mitchell  of  vitally  important 
matter  to  fill  a  serious  void  in  Mr.  Peary's  work,  for  absolutely 
nothing  is  given  in  Mr.  Peary's  observations  regarding  the 
longitudinal  positicm  of  the  camp.  Mr.  Peary,  in  fact,  having 
admitted  that  he  did  not  make  a  longitudinal  observation  within 
800  miles  of  the  Pole. 

12.  Mr.  Mitchell,  in  stating  that  the  observations  of 


598 


Htu  the  North  Pole  Been  Discovered 


the  sun  at  midnight  of  April  6  were  made  midnight  sixtieth 
meridian  West  time,  is  in  error,  as  the  time  was  midnight 
Columbia  meridian  or  70  West  time. 

IS.  Mr.  Mitchell's  plot  showing  the  traverse  of  Mr. 
Peaiy's  claimed  movements  at  the  Pole,  is  in  hopeless  error 
and  in  contradiction  on  every  point  of  every  statement  made  by 
Mr.  Peary  on  the  same  subject.  The  location  of  the  camp  on 
the  lS7th  meridian  West  being  in  error  67  degrees  west;  again 
being  in  error  SS  d^rees  east;  again  being  in  error  67  d^rees 
west;  the  sim  at  night  passing  the  position  hours  before  the 
time  specified  by  Mr.  Peaiy;  and  the  line  of  travel  being  neither 
north  nor  south,  as  specified  by  Mr.  Peary. 

14.  Mr.  Mitchell  again  mistakes  the  standard  of  time, 
for  the  6  a.  m.  observation  of  the  7th,  taking  it  at  6:40  a.  m. 
Columbia  meridian  or  70  West  time,  whereas  it  is  6  a.  m. 
Columbia  meridian,  or  6:40  sixtieth  meridian  time.  He  mis- 
places the  azimuth  position  of  the  sun  10  degrees,  or  40  minutes 
m  time  of  the  sun,  an  error  four  times  the  error  of  the  chrono- 
meter to  which  his  corrections  must  be  confined. 

15.  Mr.  Mitchell  lays  down  the  proposition  that  whereas 
one  observation  does  not  give  a  position  two  observations  do, 
but  himself  violates  the  rule  in  that  he  does  not  place  the 
position  of  the  camp  at  the  position  given  by  two  of  Mr.  Peary's 
three  observations.  In  fact,  Mr.  Mitchell  throws  his  own 
rule  to  the  winds,  for  he  does  not  place  the  camp  at  any  of 
the  three  positions  assigned  to  it  by  the  statements  of  Mr. 
Peary,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  any  errors  to  justify  this  dis- 
placement. 

16.  Mr.  Mitchell,  without  any  justification  or  reason 
whatever,  falsely  places  the  position  of  the  camp  67  degrees 
West  of  the  position  stated  by  Mr.  Peary. 

17.  Mr.  MitcheU,  without  any  justification  or  reason 
whatever,  falsely  places  the  positicm  of  the  camp  SS  degrees 
East  of  the  position  stated  by  Mr.  Peary. 

18.  Again,  Mr.  Mitchell,  without  any  justification  or 
reason  whatever,  falsely  places  the  position  of  the  camp  67 
d^rees  west  of  the  position  stated  by  Mr.  Peary. 

10.  Mr.  Mitchell,  in  showing  Mr.  Peary's  route  to  be 
approaching  the  Pole  at  an  angle  crossing  the  00th  meridian 
West  to  the  lS7th  meridian  West  longitude  at  latitude  80'  55' 
23"  does  so  falsely  without  any  war*;,:!!  or  authority  whatev«r. 

20.  Mr.  Mitchell,  having  falsely  placed  the  position  of 
the  camp  on  the  lS7th  meridian  West  longitude,  falsely  shows 


Appendix  IV 


89» 


the  traverse  toward  the  sun  t»  be  in  the  Western  Hemisphere, 
whereas,  if  the  statements  of  Mr.  Peary  were  true  that  part  of  the 
route  would  have  been  made  in  the  Eastern  Hemisphere. 
^  21.  All  of  Mitchell's.  Gannett's,  and  Tittman's  testimony 
IS  but  part  of  an  effort  to  bolster  up  a  very  weak  cause,  to 
cover  up  the  wrongs  of  the  committee  of  the  National  Geo- 
graphic Society. 

^  22.  Mr.  Peary's  testimony  before  the  Congressional 
Committee  is  itself  sufficient  to  show  that  the  committee  of  the 
National  Geographic  Society  did  not  make  a  proper  examina- 
tion of  Mr.  Peary's  data,  and  in  declaring  Mr.  Peaiy  the  dis- 
coverer of  the  North  Pole  without  having  made  a  proper  and 
sufficient  examination  of  the  date,  th?y  perpetrated  a  gross 
miqui^  upon  the  people  of  America  and  the  whole  world, 
and  tried  to  foist  a  fraud  upon  history. 

Mr.  Peary  chaived  Dr.  Ckwk  with  havmg  handed  the  people 
a  'gold  brick."  Mi.  Peary  has  handed  the  public  somethmg 
much  worse  than  a  gold  brick. 


St  Louis,  Mo..  February  19, 1911. 


W.  J.  Abiibbubtbb. 


I 


It''- 


DIDEX 


i   ■ 


f   ,-» 


INDEX 


Abnuci.   Duke,   Daily  average,   79. 
Adams,     Cyrua    C,    of     American 

Geographic   Soc.,    on   speed  on 

polar  ice.  74,  109. 
Ahwela,   Examined   by   Peary,   SS6, 

Alleged    testitnony    320,337. 
All  Fools  Day,  lt)09.  113,  114 
American  Route,  377. 
Ameriran  Geographic  Society,  74. 
Amundsen,  Roald,  Average  speed,  77. 
His  organization  116, 117. 
His  plan  to  reach  North  Pole,  134. 
His  method  to  South  Pole.  135. 
Speed   of.   378.   Sledge.    388.   416. 
Stratagem  in  organisation.  450. 
Endorsement    of    Cook,    469.470. 
Pr<qx>sed  trip  to  Pole  474. 
Annoetok.  344.  347.  348.  349.  350. 

352,377.429.  Latitude  by  Stock- 
well  423.  424.  425. 
AnUrctic,  6,  <i44. 
Appendix    I,    W.    J.    Armbruster- 

Analysis  of  Peary's  PoUr  state- 
ments, 479-489 
Appendix  II.  H.  W.  Lew>^  on  drift, 

490-498 
Appendix  III,  R.  B.  Macon's  speech 

in  Congr.js.  494-510. 
Appendix  V/,  Armbruster's  analysis 

of  Mitchell's  sUtement,  517-529. 
Arctic.  6.  64,  71,  72,  Relay  parties, 

82.    Traveling,  87.    90,    Favora 

Pteaiy,  92. 
Arctic  Sea.  354.  377. 
Armbruster.  W.  J.,  App<'adix  I,  479- 

488  and  Appendix  IV.  517-529. 
Atlantic  Ocean,  377. 
Australia,  19. 

Baffin  Bay.  377. 

Balch.  Edwin  Swift.  Book  on  Mt. 

McKiniey         and        Mountain 

Climbers,  S96. 


Bartlett,  R.  E.,  Dismissal  28.  Speed 
eclipsed,  SO.  Latitude  of  Bartlett 
Camp,  34,  Returned,  37,  Turned 
back,  30,  Young  and  vigorous,  47, 
1906  return  from  "Big  Lead", 
262.  Arrival  at  Cape  Columbia. 
57.  Hours  and  Marches.  58,  59, 
Compared  with  Peary  in  speed. 
60,  61.  Ot.  64,  70,  72,  Heads 
pioneer  party,  83,  Prepared  trail, 
88,  90,  Log  book,  93,  94,  95,  364, 
Forty  hours  without  sleep,  95, 
Comparison  with  Peary  in  speed, 
96.  97.  At  Marvin's  grave,  102- 
105 

Bartlett  Camp.  Henson's  diary,  29, 
Location,  34,  Arrival  at,  37. 
Speed  north  of,  38,  Trips  north 
and  south  from,  46,  47,  48,  52. 
53,  ^leed  MUth  of,  60,  62,  66. 72, 
73. 74.  78.  80.  84-93.  95.  356. 357. 

Behring's  Strait,  Table  IX,  165. 

Belle  jf  the  West  (Ship)  In  dedica- 
tion, 3,  Author's  second  and 
third  voyage  m,  19. 

Bellerophon,  55. 

Big  Lead,  34,  81. 

Borup,  George,  On  Detours.  31. 
Returned  after  21  days,  37.  57. 
Peary's  ilescrmtion  agrees  with 
that  of.  70.  Writings.  88.  Used 
chronometer,  205,  95,  103,  On 
current  130.  131. 

Borup  Camp.  61.  357.  Probably 
Peary's  farthest  north  in  1006. 
369. 

Boston,  79,  Sa  161. 

Boston  Sunday  American,  Henson's 
article,  66,  143,  144. 

Bradley  Land,  392. 

Browne.  Belmore.  396. 

Butler.  Thomtus  S..  Chairman  oi 
C<»nmittee.  218. 


533 


534 


Index 


Cabot,  John,  390. 

Cugni,  On  drift,  33,  Plottrd  drift,  3S, 
Ave.  .speed  on  polar  ice,  74,  77, 
Ik'st  march,  78,  Northern  record, 
361. 

Camp  No.  26,  Reached  on  April  5th, 
48,  Un!iurpa88ed  speed  north  of, 
£0,  Sounding  made  at,  51, 
Peary  describes  arrival  at,  5t, 
Observations  at,  163. 

Camp  Jessup,  46,  Famous  Polar 
Camp,  49,  Attempt  made  to  sleep 
at,  60,  Arrival  at,  51,  Time  con- 
sumed at,  52,  Peary  leaves,  57, 
Peary  turns  against  Henson  at, 
66.  Various  locations,  162,  Ob- 
servations at,  103,  Error  in  loca- 
tion, 358,  359. 

Camp  No.  22,  Bartlett  leaves  Peary 
at.  57. 

Cape  Columbia.  34,  35,  Expedition 
a-ssembled  at,  37,  39,  46,  53,  56, 
Arrival  at,  57,  60,  61,  In  relation 
to  North  Pules,  65,  69,  70,  Speed, 
77,  78,  82,  83,  84,  85,  87.  91,  92. 
94,  99,  356,  357,  358. 

Cape  Newmeyer,  361. 

Cape  Sheridan,  Winter  quarters  at, 
37.  78,  85,  98,  99. 

Cape  Sparbo,  343,  344,  340.  347.  348, 
350. 

Central  China,  161. 

Cervantes,  355. 

Chester,  Colby  M..  Rear  Admiral. 
212.  S5G,  359,  370. 

Chrononicters,    Humbug,    205,    206. 

Clark,  1006,  Returns  from  big  lead, 
262. 

Columbus.  473. 

Committee  on  Naval  Affairs,  Action 
reviewed,  210-217,  incl..  Con- 
vened March  4,  1910,  218,  Con- 
vened January  7.  1911.  225. 

Compass.  Traveling  by.  244.  245. 
246,  217. 

Compass  variations,  242,  244,  245, 
Affected  by  metab,  247. 

Congressional  Hearing,  29. 

Congressional  Record.  Moore's 
Speech,  lOS. 

Cook,  F.  A.,  No  proofs  to  submit,  5. 
Story  not  suspicious.  6.  20, 
Honored  at  Copenhagen,  loss  of 
friends  thro  Peary.  Expatriates 


bhnwlf:  25.  Journey  UluatntMl 
in  N.  Y.  Herald,  30,  65. 7%  Claim 
defeated,  73,  74.  Average  speed, 
76.  77.  Best  march.  78.  Cfaima 
absurd  according  to  Peary,  81. 
84.  Contention  favored  by  Peary. 
86,  90,  His  theory.  91-9C,  Makes 
clear  statement,  MQ,  Compari- 
son with  Peuys  statement  S41, 
His  history  in  expbration.  S45, 
346,  466,  Assumed  therav  of  his 
Sparbo  trip,  349-855,  Why  need 
of  secrecy,  352,  95S,  Claim  prior 
to  Peary's,  975,  Remaricable 
speed.  376-978,  Chooses  his  route, 
377.  378.  His  errors.  379^^85. 
Picture,  "Mending  near  Pole." 
386,  Shadows.  385.  886.  Shadow 
ghosts.  386  to  988.  Sledge.  988. 
Variation  of  compass  not  re- 
corded. 380.  390.  ''False  in  one 
false  in  all"  unsound  doctrine, 
390-891.  Various  alleged  dis- 
coveries. 302.  Writings  on  food 
allowance.  400  to  406,  His  dogs, 
wei^t,  etc.,  408,  Conclusion  of 
review,  466-475,  Book  "First 
Antan:tic  Ni^t."  468.  Critidsea 
Nansen.  468,  Evidence  of  dis- 
covery, 473. 

Cooking  apparatus.  None  provided 
for  supporting  parties,  28. 

Copenhaam,  W.  T.  Stead's  report. 
20.  Cook's  arrival  at.  25. 

Copenhagen  University.  5. 6,  Decision 
391,  892. 

Crowell,  Amelia  J..  19. 

Decker.  Karl.  His  tirade.  434  to  438. 
His  ideas  about  getting  longi- 
tude, 435,  436,  His  ideas  about 
sicuflFcs  437* 

Delong,  On  drift,  33,  Plotted  drift.  85 

Detours,  Explanation  of,  31. 

Deviations,  Cause  of,  32.  33.  84.  85. 
36. 

Diagi-ams.  Explained,  37,  51,  72.  Dia. 
9  explained.  190.  Dia.  11  ex- 
plained. 190. 

Dogs,  28.  51,  56,  60,  85.  Peary's 
miscount,  138. 

Drift.  28,  Explanation  of.  31. 

Duval.  186,  356. 


Index 


080 


East  Dennis,  Mus.,  Author's  birth- 

pboe,  19. 
Eginwah,  Restless  at  Camp  Jessup.  51. 
Egypt.  (Bark),  Authw  commanded, 

19. 
EUesmere  Land,  S44,  847,  8M,  977, 

4M.  415,  4«9. 
Emerson,  Harrington,    On  speed  of 


pedMtriaaa,  78. 
glebridit,  188. 


Engiebrii^t,  188. 

Eskimos.    M,    Unkwd    sledges,    49, 
Included  in  expedition.  At,  58, 
Better  witnesses,  05,  To  assist 
in  location  of  North  Pole,  00, 
7S.  80.  100.  At  Itfarvin'i  grave. 
101.  8S4. 
Etah.  849.  851.  85i. 
Etukishook.    Examined    by    Peary. 
SCO,  AOeged  testimony.  3i0.  837. 
Euro|>e.  19.  i9.  00,  74. 
ExaminatMMi,  of  Cook's  Eskimos.  885- 

880. 
Facsimile,  Errors  in,  194. 
Faked  obaervations,  84%  841  to  857. 
FSctipn  writers,  858. 
FVancke,  Rudoh,  887,  849,  Writes  a 

bo(4c,  448. 
FVam,  88,  Drift  of.  S3,  85. 
Frani    Joseph    Land.    Crossed    by 

Nansen  and  Johaiuen,  75. 
Galle.  Prof,  of  Beriin,  170. 
Gannett,  Henry,  Pres't  Nat'I  Geo- 
gn4>hic   Soc.,    818,    Testfanmy, 
88a  Ml.  888, 888k  847, 850^  859. 
Geognphic  Society.  Natianal.  5.  7% 
71,  105,  100,  107,  188.  tlO,  811, 
818,    870,    398.    FaicKal    pro- 
ceedings, 89 
Gfeuceater,    Mass.,    488,    Hdgesen's 
ctitKism  of  Cook's   description 
a<  affairs  at.  447. 
GoodaeD.  Betumed  after  14  days,  87, 

57. 
Grant  Land,  870,  877. 
Greeley,  A.  W..  Chi  Arctic  sledging, 

75,  Daily  average,  79. 
Greenknd.  88,  870.  877,  485,  488. 
Gregg,  Member  of  Committee,  818. 
Groiqia,     Peary's    alleged    tn»Hift 
tabulated  into  groups,   89,   40L 
41,  48,  48.  71. 
Groavenor.     GMbert     H..     Defoids 
Peary's  dahns  for  speed.  105, 100, 
107,  118,  Testimoigr,  889;  850. 


Hamptna'a  Magaainea,  Hcbmb's 
artick,  07.  dO,  Vtuf*  artfefe, 
88, 88k  80,  90. 

Hans  Eoede  (Steamer),  Steamer  from 
which  Cook  mad*  aaoounoe- 
ment  of  diacoveiy,  85. 

Hand  Book  of  Arctic  Bzpkntkna— 
By  Gen'l  A.  W.  Giedey,  75. 

Heckk,  Oqw,  08. 91, 88.  llOl  858. 

Heiberg  Land.  847.  858,  8701  877. 
484.485,488. 

Helgesen.  Hemy  T.,  Speech  reviewed, 
488  to  404,  PoiitHa  No.  1.  441. 
PbsitMo  No.  8,  44«.  CrHfcisea 
Cook's  descihrtioa  al  alain  at 
Gkuceater.  Ifaas^  *VJ,  Confuaes 
date  of  sun  rismg  in  FlBbruary 
1808,  448,  ObjecU  to  Fhuidn's 
return.  448.  Ideas  oo  variatwa 
reviewed,  458,  DiacradiU  dit- 
oovery  of  Bradley  Land.  454, 
Eefen  to  Cagni  and  Nanaw.  455, 
450. 457,  Crises  Cook's  speed. 
458.  Cook's  letter  to  Benior,  401 

Henaon.  M.  A.,  Beport  and  photo* 
omtradkt  Ptery'a,  §7,  Body 
servant,  88,  Deaeriptkms  of  ioe 
surface.  81,  Starto  north.  87, 
Unkada  sledfBa,  40,  Inebded  fai 
ejqwditkxi.  58,  OS,  Psanr's  only 
dviliied  com  taiiou  at  Pole,  04. 
Becords  more  rdiable  than 
Ptery'a,  05,  Break  with  Vmry— 
Dismiaaed— Published  artklea  b 
YfoM't  WoA  and  Boaton  Ameri- 
can, 00,  PuUishbd  artides  oom- 
pared  with  Peary's  narrative. 
07.  08k  00.  Storr  cratradicU 
Peary,  70.  71.  Con^tkws  <rf 
tiavelmg  Mardt  4  and  5,  78. 
Advances  another  tbou^t  on 
speed.  78.  Siaoeritjr  ol  story  on- 
qneBtkmed.  74,  80l  98,  On  Mai^ 
vb's  death.  108,  106,  In  Boston 
Amorican.  July  17.  MK^Worid'a 
Woric  144.  CoBtiBdicts  Ftery,. 
177-188k  Moveoeat  ol  son  at 
Pde,  184, 185,  Diary,  854, 888. 
HeraM.  N.  Y..  80. 

Hobson.  ^Mka  in  favor  of  bill,  888; 

His  tMory  of  Navigation  ud  of 

(aUng  obaervationa,  840;  841.  M7. 

Hoogeweiff.  J.  S.,  His  letter  to  Hdge- 

aen.458. 


5M 


Indtx 


HowM.  Mn.  Wb.  Frederick.  Dedkm- 

tkm  to.  8. 
Hudno.  478. 

iBdkn  Harbor.  Labrador,  Arrival  of 
Steamer  "RooMvelt"  at.  CS. 

Inugito.  Return  to  land.  894.  WitneM 
for  Cook.  SSff,  Made  8  marchea 
oo  Polar  Sea,  8SA.  8S»,  84«,  848. 
847.  849. 

Jeanette.  Wreckage  bom.  82.  Drift. 
88.  9S. 

JdmnaoB,  Records  deviation,  81.  8t. 
88.  Average  speed  less  than  t 
mika  per  day.  7S.  Daily  average. 
7». 

Jcnes'i  Sound.  848.  877. 

Jules  Verne.  8«0. 

Kane  Bans.  877. 

Kennan.  Geo..  On  sledging,  74.  On 
Cook's  food  allowance.  897,  Muak 
ox  fabricatwn.  897.  898.  SUrva- 
tion  fabticatkm.  898.  899. 

Kookwtingwah.  Betum  to  land.  834. 
Witnau  for  Cook,  89J,  Acquain- 
tance ot  Peaiy.  88d.  Made  8 
BMUches  oo  Fdar  Sea.  88ft  to 
;  88,  84S.  848,  847.  849. 

Lancaster  Sound.  877- 
Lerwick,   Sbetknd   '    Jids,   80,   8ft. 
Lewin.  H.  W.,  On  Peary's  Speed.  77. 
78.  79,  See  Apptaidn  II,  49<M98. 
Lodnrood,7ft. 

Mauon,  Congressman  R.  B.  lOS 
Member  of  committee,  818, 
SpAie  against  Peaiy  bill.  ^(89. 
See  Appendix  UI,  494416. 

Magellan.  «7S. 

M^Ah^in,  Compass  variations,  848. 

Marvin.  Boss.  Returned  after  88 
days,  87,  Pik»eer  trail,  4ft,  ft7. 
Destined  to  kise  life.  81.  99. 
Drowned.  100,  CerUficate  as  to 
soundings,  etc..   101,   108.   108. 

Marvin  Cams.  Ooiy  break  in  tmU,  Oft. 

Melville.  Ailmiral.  Chief  critk;,  08. 

Miles,   Explanation  of  Gcognqthkal 
(or  nautkal),  80.  89. 
Explanation   c^   Statute,    S(^   Ex- 
planation of  Route.  81,  89,  4ft. 


Miraclea.5f. 

MitdieU.  Hu^  C.  and  Dia^w.  IM. 
187, 800, 8S4,8ft0,  SUtaneat.  188. 
189,  Sutement  and  Dtegnun  1 
anajyMd,191to909. 

Moore,  Congressman,  105. 

Mt.  McKinky.  804-a0«. 

McCUntoek.  7ft. 

McMiUan.  DonaU.  AT.  B«M!bed 
ship.  98.  Used  chranoBMttr.  80ft, 
IVto  to  mytkkal  Crodwr  Land- 
speed,  loot  note  878  to  881.  488. 

Nansen.  Fridjcff.  Record  duviatka 
81-8B-S8rnotted  drift,  Sft,  Avar* 
age  speed,  7ft,  Best  day,  76, 77. 
Best  march,  78,  Daily  average, 
79.  lift.  Obtained  oompaaa  varia- 
tkms.  848,  869,  Sledae,  888, 
Writes  for  Encydopedk  Brtttani- 
ca  on  Cook,  407. 

Nares.  Daibr  aver^.  79. 

Natkmal  Geographic  Society  (Sm 
Geographic  Soc.) 

Nearest  the  Pole  (Book),  8«9  to  807. 

New  Y<^  Henson  dismissed  at,  601, 
8ft8. 

New  York  HeraU.  4t4. 

North  Fble.  Gvoipvphk,  ft.  M,  81, 
48,  66,  66,  70,  78.  74.  80.  81, 
88,  89,  901  91,  98,  10ft.  807.  Re- 
latkm  to  magnetk  Pole.  848, 844- 
84ft.  84ft.  48ft. 

North  Pole.  Bfagnetic.  Bdatun  to 
North  Pole.  6S.  848.  844.  846. 

North  Pole  (Book).  88.  St.  67.  71. 

Observatwna.  88.  Made  18  near  the 
Pole,   Iftft.  Descrqitiun  at,  lft6. 

167,  lft8.  Four  sms  near  Pole, 
IftO.  Marvin's  and  Bartlett's.  Iftft. 
At  Camp  Jcasiq).  169.  Table  O, 

168,  at  midiui^t.  IftO,  Table  IX. 
164.  Analyiing  statement  No  1, 

168.  Ana^iing  statemeat  No.  8, 

169.  Sutement  No.  1  withifaawn. 
17ft.  Hensoo  vs  Pfeary.  177, 
Table  X.  Henson  vs  Vmry,  177. 

Omaha,  Nebraska.  19. 

Orient,  19. 

Ontkiok  Magniir-i  Kennan's  article, 

Pfcrry,   77,   Best  maidi.  78,  Daily 

average  79.  8ft9. 
Peary,  R.  E,  Inqxisaibfe  to  prove  or 


Indu 


587 


PfMjr,  (Orm.) 

akprove  ckini.A,  Stonr  tppem 
innaoa«,    A,    OmiU    tmporURt 
dM*.   7,   to.  «1.   Appatkd   to 
CoognM.  U,  i6,  Nutrntivs  in  8 
fomu,  fl6,  Stoiy  tppetn  mu- 
pidova.  M,  DeKfiptiow  MHpi- 
cioua — Egotian   too  appMmt — 
Notabb  oontmdktiotu  and  mb- 
bifuHiM.  t7,  M.  ChooM  Houon 
for  Polw  dMh.  gS.  Sivport  of 
nilUoMiiM.  n.  Diacnpunr  b 
■peed  fint  item  noticed.  aOiF^ 
ceotafB  nUowcd  for  detoun,  SI, 
Does  not  know  laM|itiide,  88,  84. 
Boom  drift  onn  be  <&dud.  84-85. 
Drift.  85,  StarU  north.  87.  Speed 
north    of   Bnrtlett    Camp    im- 
poMibie.  47-48.  Too  weary  to 
taka   hut    few  ttepa.   40.   50. 
FlKnonienal  need  north  of  Camp 
M.  50-51.  Safe  arrival  at  Camp 
8«.  51.  South  of  Bartlett  Camp. 
50.  Arrival  at  Cape  Columbia. 
57,   Hours  and   mardtes   from 
Camp  Jeisiq>  to  Gi|m  Columbia. 
5»^.  Verraa  BarUett.  00-01.  OS. 
08,  CoBpanimi  at  Pole,  04^. 
Beoord  not  as  iciiabie  as  Hsih 
sob's,  05,  Turns  apinst  Hmann. 
00,    Narrative    canpand    with 
Benson's,  07.  08.  00,  Dcacnption 
of  leads  and  ice  ccmditkos.  70i 
71,  Story  oontnwUcted  by  Hen- 
son.  70.  Discrcdits  Cook's  chum, 
78.  Ckfans  for  qiecd  faicredifale. 
74.  Best  manges.  77.  Oafau  for 
speed  prcpostOToos.  60,  Attemots 
to  Aow  Cook's  chums  absurd.  Ml. 
Baotism,    S4,     Ckvots    Cook's 
oootentioB.    80,    Broken    trails. 
87-88.  Goinft  88.  Leads  "Nortii 
and  South".  MU  188,  Disonpan- 
oiea  shown  fagr  cM^iariaan.  OK,  98. 
07.00, 00.  Soundinf  UOOCsthoms. 
lOib  C^  went  to  Bonqi  Qunp, 
105.  Discicdila   his  own    story, 
115,  Bode  on  a  furUned  sledge. 
110,   On   Arctic   dedgbg.    117. 
QosBiagisada,118,Hisvuionat 
Bardatt  Gamp,  ItO,  Lewi  "North 
and  SobUi''.  70,  00,  180,  Col- 
lapsed physioafly,  180.  Shakes- 
•      mind.  188,  Frophecy  and 
IMllOCltOw  "flan" 


Peary,  (Cm.) 

188,  Faulty  aathsMtiei^  185. 

180,  187.  188,  1881  Log  drive 
roaparisoa,  188,  188.  Dr.  fckyU 
and  Mr.  VM».  180.  Nuidber  ol 
dogs.  188.  Bnw  in  quinary  dis- 
tricts. 138.  ftfistakeas  to  Bonip's 
return.  140. 141.  Enan  ahownby 
W.  N.  Johnson.  141,  HsaKm 
contradicts,   177,  1781  178,   180, 

181,  188,  1881  "Noon"  at  Pole, 
188,  Peary's  arrival  in  Wadiinr 
ton.  October  80l  lOOBl  818. 
Testimony.  888-385.  Did  not 
tall  cowpanioas  saoept  Bart- 
lutt  about  reachi^  the  Pols.  885- 
887.  Ersetad  monnnMnt  at  Cbpa 
Cohnbfe.  885,  888.  BMsmdat. 
taehed  to  manunent.  885.  888. 
^eaqr  hands,  dean  paper.  888, 
Made  no  dkry  entries  at  IV>le, 
880,"Ftoofs, »  855.  Bill  as  passed 
by  Caupresa.iMOl  857,  ''vrtf 
in  1808^  858  to  808,  Arrives  at 
"Kg  Lead."  801, Gatooherva- 

Mt  Camp.  805,  Describes  the 
eOect  a<  the  two  atomi;  808, 
Started  Mryi  firam  Bfaini  Ca^ 
870b  Deacrflbes  daQy  ptogress, 
«n  to  178.  BeikdMe  n*^  o*, 
ns.  Diacrapanqr  in  nooid.  878^ 
Becord  riamhwd,  878  to  888, 
Betums  from  ST  &,  881 
"Bee  line,"  884.  dark's  and 
Peary's  q>eed  compared.  887  to 
M8.  Betum  to  Shm.  808  to  807, 
News  at  Shq>— Statencnt  an- 
alywd.  808  to  807,  "Invention" 
eiqtkmed.  880  to  807,  Amend- 
ments shown,  aoe  to  808,  Dis- 
credits Co(A— Bea«died  Etah. 
810,  "Stmw  for  rahef  of  Dr. 
Cook."  811,  Instroctiau  to 
Murphy.  818,  Bamoes  Cook's 
Esbmos.  818.  Peary's  4  state- 
msnU  on  point  wheie  Cook 
turned  ban^  888  to^  848.  His 
inwmtiaBa  Ki^-SM, 
tioa.  854  to  871.  Bacapitdatiaa. 
His  oontoadietioM,  857, 858. 858^ 
DU  not  saadi  8r  0'  m  1000. 
9W,  His  jmtbable  motive  and 
temptations.  808. 881  Inqiostun 
and  glory,  801  Lost  sounding- 


M8 


/win 


P«M7.  (Cm.) 

appsmtiH,  304.  Another  thcoiy. 

aUtoSn,  Another.  988.  BrilliMt 

witk  in  fomir  ymn,  881. 
Pnqr  Caribou,  tr. 
Fmtjt  Bxperkaoe,  t7. 
PnryPlu.t7. 
Ptniy  Speed.  88. 
Ftary  aedfBe,  87. 
nnnr  Ssratam.  87.  Impoeribk  to  icach 

North  ?6k  without.  81. 
PMiy  Arctic  Chib,  71.  Rett/  putiet, 

88, 188.  Report  OB  Cookie  Udmo 

taetinaajr.    88fl    to    881    (ind). 

Needed  n  ooMur,  840. 
PifMnm  U.  56. 

Flwtoiiinphe.  88.  Takinc  them.  148. 
Ftctmea  at  the  Pole.  148, 140.  ShMlowi 

cnat  on  wrong  lidiei  in  picture. 

148,  148. 
Ftoint  "D",  01. 
Ftaiadexter.  SoMitor,  Hie  qieedi  on 

Cooic'i  diaooverjr.  884,  885.  888. 
Pobr  Sen.  5.  87. 88.  801 88. 81. 88. 85. 
Ftolok  Ifnico,  «78. 
Fritcfanid.  WiliiMn.  884w  87L 

Bninay.  PmI.  8«r. 

Btmt  Aiteiml  (Pmr).  85. 

Bine.  FnOv.  CrcigMan  UniverHty. 

176.  Showi  that  obeervatiaiw  can 

ba  iikad.  MOk  MH  861.  851, 858. 
Hnberta,  ICanber  d  cammittae.  818. 

Voted  tor  faai.  880. 
Bobeeoa  Qanael,  977. 
Booaevelt  (Steamer),  85.  87,  60^  77. 

78,85,08. 
Bolt.  E.  C.  Book  CO  Mt.  McKinley, 

ito  bearing  on  Fblar  Controverqr. 

806. 
Bmn.  1006.  Betsdied  Pearjr'a  camp 

and  left  865. 

San  Vnaaaco,  70.  80. 

Soott.  On  qieed.  77.  organised  mtem, 

116^  844,  Speed  ot.  878.  Sledge. 

888.416. 
Seegk).  Beetieee  at  Camp  hmap,  51. 
Shaddeton.  R.  E..  7.  Speed.  75.  76. 

CompaM  vkriationa,    840,    84S, 

Speed  d.  878.  Sledge.  888.  416. 
Shadowy  88,  146.  Ob  wrong  aide  in 

picturae,  148,  150.  158,  158. 
Shakeipeaie.  855. 
Smith's  Sound.  877. 
Sour  ^inp,  45, 58, 58. 


South  America.  18. 

South  Pole.  ShacUeton  ■  retwn  irom. 
75. 

Sledgta.  OS.  116.  of  Nanean.  8ha«^le- 
ton.  Scott,  and  Anundan.  116. 
Weight  of.  116. 

Statement  No.  1, 168,  Analjming,  168. 
Withdrawn.  175. 

Statement  No.  8. 166, 165,  AnaijrriDit. 
168. 

Stead.  W.  T..  80. 

Stockwui.  Phi.  Mm  Nobea.  A.  M. 
Ph.  D..  808^  CritkiMB  on  mid- 
ni^  auB.  418  to  4M,  Did  not 
have  •  horiKB.  4U,  DmilpHoa 
of  a  aaitaat.  416,  Artldt  in  New 
Yorik  Tfanea.  December  5,  1800, 
416  to  4881  Lntitode  of  Annaatok. 
468,  InTiata  a  peculiar  roola, 
and  padi  dbtaacc  48<,  CoaluaM 
dataa  and  diita&cn,  4M,  His 
gariiled  table,  461.  «Jnri>led  table 
eiamtaMd.  4i0  to  4881  luggles 
with  hthndeof  AunoatokTMB. 
Nebular  Hypotheeia.  488. 

Stuck.  HudaoB,  886. 

Srartovoeg,  01.  887.  847.  848,  840. 

Smdrupb  n.  Pbtted  drift.  85,  75. 

SwBM7.  G.  D..  Nefanuka  CUveraitar. 

ShoBi  obaervatkBa  eaa  be  faked. 


TUtle  No.  1.  Gnmpa  of  aHegad 
mar^eatahtB  livm  Diagram  No. 
1.40L41.46.48. 

lUile  Na  8,  Showing  lAnk  was  doae 
after  Bartlett  turned  back,  abo 
ihowi^  a  ooBvariani  of  qmodl 
faefoie  and  after  ha  turw^i  bade, 
44. 

Tkbfe  No-  9,  Tibi^tMB  of  mardM« 
north  of  Bartiatt  Caimt,  55. 

TMt  No.  4,  Bartbtt  vs  Feary.  56. 

Ikble  No.  5.  A  twfae  toU  tak-Paaiy 

iatmue,  etc..  67.  68,  68. 
Ikble  No.  6k  Marcha  of  dpkmcab  76. 
IWile  No.  7.  rmparieoB  cf 

of  Bupportiaf  partka,  or 
TUile  No   8,  Ifamhfls  of 

nutiM  from  Cue  Cofamriria  to 

C^  Sheridan.  Ml  MM. 


Indn 


U9 


Tibb  No.  •,  ObMrTfttkmt  at  tkt 

Pok,  \n,  i«4.  iM.  iM,  ler. 

TMit  No.  lOi  HcMM  V*  Pmi7.  m. 

nil  im  isa 

Tabb  No.  11,  MHchril'i  bbffaxtioa. 

m. 

Tibb  No.  11.  Cook'i  UO  of  bic.  407 
to  409. 

TBttinnmr  At  Wuhii^a.  About 
■HurtiM  Of  dnhfait  MuiMirUBC 
putiat,  07    On  UUng  {rfwto- 

^    (ispbi.  146.  147. 

Tittaaa.  O.  R.,  IM,  187,  Sq>t.  of 
U.  8.  CoMt  ud  GoodeticSunrajr, 
ni.  tia^  Tartfaaanjr.  tl7  to  MO 
iDGi..8B«,  SM. 


'TimWo 
ByH 


of 

70. 


Wobrtw.  Oaaid.  174. 

WaOauui.  Walter,  aoa 

2!!*^  Wwaid  Hyw,.  701  M. 

WMtYanBouth.>laM^10. 

WU^.  Hany  Vt^am.  904,  844,  047. 

Wild  Hnter.  (8Up).  Antbor'a  flnt 

^voyafB  b.  10. 
WUkaa  b  tbe  Aatarctic.  Fht  dit. 

«,  jT'*li?*'.**»  bMwped.  404. 
World's  Work.  Beono'a  artfak.  00. 
•7.  144. 


I  mm^ 


w 


Oiw 


The^'RAND  McNALLY 

N£W  LIBRARY  ATLAS  MAP  OF 

NORTH  POLAR 
REGIONS 


Ibit  W    1 


ki,   IMi 


udlu 


/«■  <«J 


'^^A: 


Burgato 


>Aro 


/ 


ot;^bbo 


ot** 


\ 


.^^ 


OoMit- 


iS  B 


rrUT, 


m'W 


Cmtmt      ^j 

M'H' 


/M 


'^,J.A1H> 


i-^ 


VT 


>*^ 


^xj^ 


.^^ 


1^ 


UyllM 


IC- 


rJ^X> 


-^^^ 


rJi^ 


LA%J«kJ 


»^ 


^-tr^' 


5^ 


_«< 


'^'^W^ 


r^ 


.8' a  A 


LEGEND 


—  I.  •     n    »'    > 


tsf$timCxp*Mbm  m»jiip — — — ~— 


L»taW>>»  »—■»■«.♦> 


Jgi. 


11 


brstti 


riA< 


liar 
12 


18 


14 


16 


1^ 


2IL 


ijJSijb^i 


B  JTy 


om*«»i 


UokMl    ^ 


Kan. 


f.^^ 


le 


17 


18 


LE< 


Arv^«*Mto— — 


iVfThi  n't  flTii  flNT" 


^ir\ 


>CM 


3^      /      C 


7r 


--"'~**' — ^,    .....      y- 


■liliikaaiiifeMMiiiiHHMiMiaaia 


-"^      ' 


;->->>, 


p 

< 


IUI9 


'^.  .M^: 


2IL 


S»- 


i»»J 


*%^^/ 


^W 

K^^ 

►    1 1' 

3 

^^ 

Br'-  '-. 

/ 

^^P 

V 

Si       t 

-^ 

V^^^-i* 

\ 

IHSk^RM'^"^;^ 

',_,  fc  J 

*J           iHfU 

■v^  /          *^"J8S 

E  '  .1^ 

^ 

S^-M' Z 

Jit^ 

IS 


LEGEND 


^1     II I  nil '   II 


'^      II  jig 


0 


MAT  ir# 
Mt*4Att' 


W7 


K 


TK 


IH 


■naM 


h^ifei^,^^.  .■^Li-^.l^-^|g«^-. 


liMIIHM 


0M||Mg 


